The method described below is generally what we do. Not perfect, but
better than nothing, or just straight removals.
Anyway, we're more than happy to do this once in a while.. We just
require detailed instructions as to what goes where.
-R (your friendly cvs monkey) (ook ook)
> An alternative
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 01:52, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Okay, after some major changes, here's the second revision of my patch.
> This one is fully functional.
>
> On my system, it creates over a 10x speedup for lazy DOD runs!
Yay!
>
> (I'll post the benchmark program if someone wants; it's pre
Okay, after some major changes, here's the second revision of my patch.
This one is fully functional.
On my system, it creates over a 10x speedup for lazy DOD runs!
(I'll post the benchmark program if someone wants; it's pretty long)
Luke
Index: core.ops
===
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > > Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > > > Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As I was googling to see how other people have approached
> > > > > these problems I ran across:
> > > >
> > > > > http://blogs
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > > Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I was googling to see how other people have approached
> > > > these problems I ran across:
> > >
> > > > http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/cbrumme/CategoryView.aspx
This is mostly just a gratuitous message so that Piers has something
to talk about in the next summary ;-), but when's the next
Apocalypse due out?
In these quiet times, it would be nice to hear from the language design
team every now and then even if nothing but a "still working". (Better
would
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 18:40, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > It's incredibly useful for testing the innards of objects, I think that's
what
> > people use it for.
>
> I still don't think it should be. An object is not a hashref or a
> listref. It might happen to be implemented by blessing a hashre
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> Random thought
>
> There's some discussion on perl-qa right now about how Test::More should
> implement "is_deeply", which executes a code block and tests that the
> return value is equivalent to a particular nested data structure. (The
> question
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:23, Tels wrote:
> I agree. For instance, ok() just looks at the outside, and if it compares
ok,
> the objects are considered equal. After all, this is the entire point behind
> overloading and tie, to "fake" something. For instance, this "feature" of
> ok() makes
--- Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0700, Amir Karger wrote:
>
>
> Cheat first to help you get started.
Actually, I believe True Laziness would say cheat always. Except maybe
when Hubris says it'll look cooler if it's native :)
> We found at work
Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:27, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
>
> > Isn't the easiest way to get a recursive-and-exact object graph
> > match to simply use an existing serializer (FreezeThaw,
> > Data::Dumper)?
>
> If you want a yes/no answer then it probab
Random thought
There's some discussion on perl-qa right now about how Test::More should
implement "is_deeply", which executes a code block and tests that the
return value is equivalent to a particular nested data structure. (The
question posed on that list is with regard to how to handle tie()
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:09:16PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> But it doesn't fail, it never has failed and it was never intended to fail.
> is_deeply is specifically for looking at and descending into the structure of
> it's arguments, otherwise what's the point? Where's the "deep"ness?
I don't
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 11:23 AM, Tels wrote:
From my point of view is_deeply() is an extended ok(), which also walks
arrays, hashes and other (possible nested) structures, and then
compares
_each_ element.
This is how I've always seen it, assuming Tels meant is() instead of
ok() above
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0700, Amir Karger wrote:
> Sure we can, and it's a tool we might want. I had gotten the impression
> that Dan considered having any extra scripts to be cheating. Then
> again,
> maybe cheating isn't such a bad thing, if it helps get the project
> started.
Cheat
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:27, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> Isn't the easiest way to get a recursive-and-exact object graph match to
> simply use an existing serializer (FreezeThaw, Data::Dumper). This
> leverages the circular reference handling and introspection smarts built
> into those librari
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > my $str1 = MyString->new("foo", "bar");
> > my $str2 = MyOtherString->new("foo", "baz");
>
> Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
> I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:08, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Most of the time people shouldn't care. If the thing is sufficiently
> masquerading as a type 5 widget you shouldn't care - that's purel
Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> parser_util.c: In function `imcc_vfprintf':
> parser_util.c:629: `char' is promoted to `int' when passed through `...'
> parser_util.c:629: (so you should pass `int' not `char' to `va_arg')
Thanks for reporting, fixed.
> Simon
leo
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > my $str1 = MyString->new("foo", "bar");
> > my $str2 = MyOtherString->new("foo", "baz");
>
> Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
> I must admit that even with the current is_deeply it will
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> > >1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> > >2) is $str1, $str2;
> > >3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> > >4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
> > All should pass as far as I am concerned.
I agree. The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 16:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> > >1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> > >2) is $str1, $str2;
> > >3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> > >4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
> >
> > All shou
My opinion: those is_deeply() tests should probably not pass. While on the surface
it may appear
that they should, I would argue that this is a case where the programmer writing the
tests needs
to know enough about the system he or she is building to create tests that accurately
reflect how
th
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #23767]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23767 >
Hi,
I've just tried to build parrot from a fresh checkout, and it's failing
with th
> "AK" == Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AK> --- Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "AK" == Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> the designs range from a total code conversion, load and translate
>> the zcode into equivilent imcc. this should be the e
> "AK" == Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AK> So you mean you require the first byte to be a number <=8, and the
AK> pointer to the end of the dictionary has to be less than the size
AK> of the file, the flag bits need to have sane values, etc.?
AK> Interesting. I guess with so
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >
> >> BTW PerlInt.divide() always yields a PerlNum, this seems bogus to me.
> >> I think we need some clarification for the PerlNum implementation.
>
> > That's r
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 10:52 Europe/London, Tony Bowden wrote:
[snip]
1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
2) is $str1, $str2;
3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
All should pass as far as I am concerned.
The Test::More deeply behaviour matches my intuitions, and I would have
tests th
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> >2) is $str1, $str2;
> >3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> >4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
> All should pass as far as I am concerned.
OK - what if it was slightly more complex:
package MyString;
use overload
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:07:00PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
> answer on these tests.
But do you agree that they should all pass?
If so I've completely misunderstood your earlier arguments. They certainly
aren't "deepl
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:41:56AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > BTW PerlInt.divide() always yields a PerlNum, this seems bogus to me.
> > I think we need some clarification for the PerlNum implementation.
>
> That's right--perl math always ends up as
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>> BTW PerlInt.divide() always yields a PerlNum, this seems bogus to me.
>> I think we need some clarification for the PerlNum implementation.
> That's right--perl math always ends up as floats.
I'm not sure:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >>1) should these ops just be implemented or
> >>
> >
> > This one. We can consider pruning out unused variants later, after we've
> > been up and running and have reasonable HLL
The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
answer on these tests. I was going to say:
What you need is
package MyOtherString;
use overload
'""' => sub { shift->[0] },
fallback => 1;
sub new {
my ($class, $val) = @_;
bless [ $val ], $class;
}
But actuall
Dan Sugalski wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
1) should these ops just be implemented or
This one. We can consider pruning out unused variants later, after we've
been up and running and have reasonable HLL output to check against.
Ok. Started that.
- neg_p
- new vtables for cmod
Leon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Something! For the first time in ages!]
Hurrah! A summarizer breaths easily!
There's been a protracted discussion on the code-review mailing list
about the behaviour of is_deeply in Test::More, which really belongs
here or p5p.
For the most part it was sparked by a disagreement about what should
happen when comparing overloaded objects (but also then impacts on tied
objec
--- Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "AK" == Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> the designs range from a
> total code conversion, load and translate the zcode into equivilent
> imcc. this should be the easiest to do as you just need to write a
> code
> generator for each zco
--- Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "AK" == Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> AK> Er, I'll assume you have a magic (pun slightly intended) way to
> AK> decide which files are Zcode? How will you tell the Zcode
> AK> from other bytecode noise? I don't see anything pa
--- Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The code name is, of course,
> open for discussion. Although I reserve the right to call it the
> "hairy tulip" release if I want.
>
"Hairy tulip" is shorter than "open for discussion"
http://home.pyramid.net/gallery/hairytulip.jpg
You can call me anyth
40 matches
Mail list logo
