Hiya,
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 07:09 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:49, Adrian Howard wrote:
The thread from the start of May about having optional / extendable
plans supported by Test::Harness would seem to be a good match for
this
feature.
http://archive.d
I could throw up a Wiki somewhere if people think it would be useful
(I've been looking for an excuse to play with CGI::Kwiki).
(IRC is to scary a time sink for me ;-)
Adrian
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 07:14 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:56, Andy Lester wrote:
This
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:56, Andy Lester wrote:
> This is something Schwern and I have discussed before, and that I
> would LOVE to put into Test::Harness, if only we could hash out the
> specifics. Are you ever in AIM/IRC? I'd kinda like to have an
> online workgroup to thrash on the spec
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:49, Adrian Howard wrote:
> The thread from the start of May about having optional / extendable
> plans supported by Test::Harness would seem to be a good match for this
> feature.
>
> http://archive.develooper.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01883.html (Plan is
> YAG
Why would you want to do this? Simple example.
This is something Schwern and I have discussed before, and that I
would LOVE to put into Test::Harness, if only we could hash out the
specifics. Are you ever in AIM/IRC? I'd kinda like to have an
online workgroup to thrash on the specifics...
xoa
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 07:53 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Consider the following.
use Test::More;
use Test::Warn::None;
plan tests => 42;
To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder
planning
sy
I just wanted to bring up nested blocks and sub-plans again. I've been hacking
around in Test::Builder and I've implemented something that works and does
something that I think is useful. It allows you to write tests that have
output like
1..5
ok 1 - pass
ok 2 - fail
1..3 a nested set of test
Bernhard Schmalhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
> # Please include the string: [perl #22765]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22765 >
> Hi,
> when playing with
Further to the lightweight proxy thing, one of the things that proves
to be something of a pain in Pixie is writing 'self replacing'
proxies, where, once something is actually fetched from the database,
the proxy should go away. You can't simply assign to $_[0] (at least
in Perl 5) because that doe
> > I'm not yet sure whether it's worth having engine support for
> > specific exception type checking
>
> I think we would have:
> - Exception handler = Continuation
> - Exception object = a new class of some type[2]. When the system throughs
> an exception, it would attach 2 properties to the
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exception handlers really strike me as anonymous lexically scoped
> subroutines that get called with just one parameter--the exception
> object. As far as the engine should be concerned, when an exception
> is taken we just take a continuation with the addr
11 matches
Mail list logo
