On Sunday 14 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:36:16PM CET:
> > But it's not like I have a "silver bullet" to write proper tests
> > which attain complete branch coverage; I just proceed by "common
> > sense", trying to maximize such covera
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:36:16PM CET:
> But it's not like I have a "silver bullet" to write proper tests
> which attain complete branch coverage; I just proceed by "common
> sense", trying to maximize such coverage. That's all, sadly.
A while ago I posted instructions
Hello Pippijn.
On Saturday 13 November 2010, Pippijn van wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:18:44PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Ideally, I would like to see testsuite coverage for each code path
> > ("branch coverage") for new code. I understand that only Stefano is
> > able to produce thi
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:18:44PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Ideally, I would like to see testsuite coverage for each code path
> ("branch coverage") for new code. I understand that only Stefano is
> able to produce this in reasonable amount of time, so whatever you guys
> can manage is bett
* Pippijn van Steenhoven wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:43:57PM CET:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 02:13:00PM +0200, Valentin David wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > I haven't looked at the patch in detail yet, but will, now that
> > > the assignment papers are
Hi Valentin,
let's move to the -patches list. And sorry for the long delay.
* Valentin David wrote on Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:53PM CEST:
> I propose a patch as attached.
>
> * The lang_*_rewrite are added to the Language structure. The default
> is lang_sub_obj. They do not return anymore th
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 02:13:00PM +0200, Valentin David wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
> wrote:
> > I haven't looked at the patch in detail yet, but will, now that
> > the assignment papers are done (thanks!).
>
> It is done.
Does this mean the feature will soon be i
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I haven't looked at the patch in detail yet, but will, now that
> the assignment papers are done (thanks!).
It is done.
--
Valentin David
valentin.da...@gmail.com
On Saturday 23 October 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Stefano, Valentin,
>
> please discuss patches on the -patches list; and please keep the
> original poster in Cc:, thanks.
>
> I haven't looked at the patch in detail yet, but will, now that
> the assignment papers are done (thanks!).
>
Hello Stefano, Valentin,
please discuss patches on the -patches list; and please keep the
original poster in Cc:, thanks.
I haven't looked at the patch in detail yet, but will, now that
the assignment papers are done (thanks!).
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 04:05:02PM CEST:
>
t with Yacc or Lex, why not with my tools?
>
> I propose a patch as attached.
>
> * The lang_*_rewrite are added to the Language structure. The default
> is lang_sub_obj. They do not return anymore the object extension
> because the field 'output_extensions' already computes it.
Hello Valentin,
* Valentin David wrote on Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:53PM CEST:
> I am waiting for your comments.
well, I very much like the ideas in your mail. I didn't look at the
patch yet, because you don't yet have copyright papers in place.
Details off-list.
Thanks,
Ralf
Op 3 sep 2010, om 18:56 heeft Valentin David het volgende geschreven:
> I propose a patch as attached.
You rule. thank you so much for this. :)
-- k
Dear Automake list,
I work with programming languages. It is very common to write small
compilers, parser generators, or other. When using my tools, it is
hard to convince my co-workers they should use the autotools when I
cannot do the proper extension of Automake. Other people end up
writing bui
14 matches
Mail list logo
