On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:36:41PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> What does an empty test file give you over an absent one?
Cleaner build system. You simply say, for every Perl file, run pod2test
to build a test file, then run all the test files. Something like:
%.pm.t: %.pm
pod2
On 11 Jun 2004, at 19:16, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
[snip]
1. pod2test exits with status 1 when there are no tests. This is
simple to work around, and you could argue that pod2test is right
to
throw up a flag for this degenerate case, but I actually think it
is
more useful to accept it
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:33:44PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I prefer to eliminate extra noise. The situation I'm in is, I just
> started using T::I, so only a few modules have any tests, and I would
> see dozens of spurious "ok" lines for untested modules.
I agree about
Time for these as well. There's a partial implementation of them in
types/bignum.c. I think it's time to move that to src/ (and the
header file to .h) and get it integrated into parrot.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
I checked in more of PDD 17, detailing parrot's base types. Some of
those types definitely don't exist (like, say, the string and bignum
type...) and could definitely use implementing. Should be fairly
straightforward, and would be a good way to get up to speed on
writing PMC classes.
--
Da
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:26:36PM -0600, Wiggins d Anconia wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:00:58PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> > > Seems to me that if T:H is passed a test file, it's not unreasonable for
> > > it to expect at least one test.
> >
> > No, not unreasonable. But I think it's
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:00:58PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> > Seems to me that if T:H is passed a test file, it's not unreasonable for
> > it to expect at least one test.
>
> No, not unreasonable. But I think it's also not unreasonable to reserve
> empty file to mean "no tests yet, ignore"
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:00:58PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Seems to me that if T:H is passed a test file, it's not unreasonable for
> it to expect at least one test.
No, not unreasonable. But I think it's also not unreasonable to reserve
empty file to mean "no tests yet, ignore".
> How abo
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:16:36PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 2. Test::Harness::runtests complains "FAILED before any test output
> arrived" on empty test files. It would be convenient if it simply
> skipped them. As it is, I "grep -s" them out in my build script.
When using Test::Inline, it is likely that not all perl files will have
inline tests. However, in a build system, the simplest thing to do is
build test scripts for all of them anyway, and have the test harness be
smart enough to ignore the ones with no tests. There are two small
problems:
1. p
While I realize that Leo's doing conference stuff at the moment, I'd
like to start thinking about the next release. For this, I think I'd
specifically like to shoot for the redo of classes/ -- getting all
the PMCs we *want* actually in and working, and the ones we don't
marked deprecated, which
At 12:57 PM -0500 6/11/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
All~
Are you suggesting that these things use the PMC classes for
String|Integer|Float or should they use STRING|INTVAL|FLOATVAL?
Externally? They should use the classes. When you do a get_pmc_keyed
from a StringArray, the result should be a String PM
All~
Are you suggesting that these things use the PMC classes for
String|Integer|Float or should they use STRING|INTVAL|FLOATVAL? Also,
looking through CVS there appears to already be
array.pmc -- basic resizable array
floatvalarray.pmc -- Array of FLOATVALs
intlist.pmc -- Array of intege
Since we're starting in on formalizing the standard complement of
PMCs for parrot, it's also a good time to be clear on what is and
isn't standard, and where the library stands.
There are three sets of PMCs here:
1) Standard. These are compiled in to Parrot, you can guarantee
they're there, can
# New Ticket Created by Nicholas Clark
# Please include the string: [perl #30220]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30220 >
---
osname= darwin
osvers= 7.3.0
arch= darwin-64int-2level
cc= ccache gcc
--
At 2:38 PM +0200 6/11/04, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm going to formally establish a basic set of
parrot PMC classes. We're going to now have:
Undef - The undefined value. Looks like 0, 0.0, false, or the empty
string, depending on how you peer at it. Can transform into
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm going to formally establish a basic set of
> parrot PMC classes. We're going to now have:
>
> Undef - The undefined value. Looks like 0, 0.0, false, or the empty
> string, depending on how you peer at it. Can transform into any other
> type. Assignment of an boolean, int
At 10:50 AM +0100 6/11/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Is there any reason not to have a coding standard that typedef should be
used whenever possible (and non-uses must have their reason commented?)
Nope. So mote it be. typedefs for types, #defines for constants and
bizarre (*temporary*!) debugging th
At 3:56 PM -0500 6/10/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
All~
Speaking of basic PMC types, I remember a bunch of basic array PMCs
that were discussed recently, some for each register type, some
which autovivified, some which didn't etc. I believe that a
stringarray was actually inserted (although currently
Any reason *not* to make this change:
Index: include/parrot/string.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/include/parrot/string.h,v
retrieving revision 1.59
diff -d -u -r1.59 string.h
--- include/parrot/string.h 22 Apr 2004 08:55:06 -
20 matches
Mail list logo
