Thank you very much for the patch. I am not picky about how I accept bug reports. Either mail or RT is fine -- or a GitHub pull request for that matter, though I have not documented that. I figure if someone takes the time and effort to let me know they have hit a bump using my software, I should not put barriers in their way. I do not at the moment have good connectivity, though, so I may not respond very promptly.
I have had to think a bit about this ticket, though. What it is really about is whether "none" is singular or plural. I do not at the moment have access to my copy of Strunk & White's "Elements of Style," so I do not know what (if anything) they say about it. The web site
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/singular-vs-plural/none-were-vs-none-was/ claims it can go either way, and since the antecedent (in my mind) is "parents," it is plural and needs "were."
But the real purpose of documentation is to inform, and if someone hits a bump reading it, whether or not it is technically correct is not relevant. I tried it out on my wife (not a programmer) and she said she couldn't make head or tail of it. After some thought, I decided that the appropriate response was to rewrite, and the relevant paragraph became "This method returns a reference to the array of parents if any were found. If no parents were found the return is false but defined. If an error occurred the return is C<undef>." This side-steps the "none" problem, and I hope is clearer.
This will be pushed to GitHub as soon as I can, and will be followed by a development release. I suspect that there will be no production release until September-ish. There is a functional change in the works, and I would like to wait for at least another development release of Perl, and a production release if possible, to see if I am tracking Perl's functionality correctly.
Again, thank you very much for helping me to make my code better.
Tom
