"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not > assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we > should do them using perl's standard testing format (i.e. Test::More, > Test::Harness, etc.)
I would argue that we should write our tests using perl6's standard format -- and we need to define that format. There may be a good argument for using the perl5 standards; but we should explore the alternatives. "assert" is a generally accepted term: I'm not sure why perl should be different. > If your program can't do basic I/O it's probably pretty broken. Even if > we we're to only rely on the test modules, they also need to be able to > communicate with the outside world. My day-job is ASIC verification: in a previous job I tested microprocessor cores. We generally found mechanisms to communicate pass/fail without requiring any IO capability. A common method is to use the programm counter -- if we execute the instruction at address 0x123456, then exit as a PASS; if we reach 0x654321, then fail. (we used the assembler to get the addresses of specific pass/fail labels). We don't need to go to these extremes for perl testing, because we have an exit(int) capability. exit(0) means pass: anything else (including timeout) is a fail. The fact that we don't need C<print> is not a good argument for not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works! Dave. -- Dave Whipp, Senior Verification Engineer, Fast-Chip inc., 950 Kifer Rd, Sunnyvale, CA. 94086 tel: 408 523 8071; http://www.fast-chip.com Opinions my own; statements of fact may be in error.
