Larry Wall wrote:
> Michele Dondi wrote:
> : Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : > > If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
> : >
> : > I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be
> : > interested in having some means to perform set operations in perl6:
> : > unions, intersectio
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 09:41:54AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Personally, I think the only reasonable way of resolving this is to
> assume (as in the last paragraph above) that function calls in these
> kinds of indeterminate contexts are always in list context.
So, even if the clash is Num vs
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:32:16AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:07:10PM +, osfameron wrote:
> : >In Perl 6, C<< => >> is a fully-fledged anonymous object constructor --
> : >like C<[...]> and C<{...}>. The objects it constructs are called
> : >"pairs"
> : >
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:58:46PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> The plan has to exist, whether it's the first or last line. I've added
> that to the docs.
Ah, that clarifies it. I misunderstood the current situation--I didn't
realize that Test::More automatically adds the plan at the bottom when
If your tests are numbered then a plan is mandatory. In certain
instances a
test file may not know how many test points it will ultimately be
running.
In this case the plan can be the last non-diagnostic line in the
output.
The plan has to exist, whether it's the first or last line. I've added
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:31:43PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> >was expected. I propose to fix this by allowing, in place of a plan at
> >the beginning, something like the line "ends with plan".
>
> In effect, finding
>
> ok 1
>
> as the first line means "ends with plan".
I think that's
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:31:43PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> >This feature is new to me--and I have to say, it seems nearly useless.
>
> It's the ages-old argument about the value of the plan. Some people
> don't like the plan, and some do.
I don't mean the plan is new, only the plan at the e
This feature is new to me--and I have to say, it seems nearly useless.
It's the ages-old argument about the value of the plan. Some people
don't like the plan, and some do.
was expected. I propose to fix this by allowing, in place of a plan at
the beginning, something like the line "ends with
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:01:45AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> But rather than that, I suspect we'll see more use of constructs
> where the object to be mutated ends up being the topic, as in:
>
> some_complicated_lvalue() but= { .sortmyway(foo($_),bar($_)) }
>
> which would presumably do t
In certain instances a test file may not know how many test points
it will ultimately be running. In this case the plan can be the last
non-diagnostic line in the output.
This feature is new to me--and I have to say, it seems nearly useless.
I consider that the primary purpose of a pla
Autrijus wrote:
> A difficulty arises because the expressions used as arguments
> is not evaluated when arityMatch is done, and for good reason --
> they may do wildly different things depending on its context.
>
> When Pugs was only implementing FP6, I could affort to force
> evaluation for each m
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:44:49AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:26:26AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > So I think your initial solution is actually the right one from the
: > viewpoint of the Perl programmer. If we need to tweak something,
: > it's perhaps to document the
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:07:10PM +, osfameron wrote:
: >In Perl 6, C<< => >> is a fully-fledged anonymous object constructor --
: >like C<[...]> and C<{...}>. The objects it constructs are called
: >"pairs"
: >and they consist of a key (the left operand of the C<< => >>), and a
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 02:45:36AM +0100, Stefan Lidman wrote:
: Junctions should be on or off by default, I prefer on.
: Having them half-on is bad.
:
: Because if it is half-on people(me) is going to write
: C< if $x == 3 | 5 | 7 { > in N places then have to
: change it and remember to change it
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:07:34PM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
:
: >> If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
: >
: >I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be interested in
: >having some means to perform set operations i
In Perl 6, C<< => >> is a fully-fledged anonymous object constructor --
like C<[...]> and C<{...}>. The objects it constructs are called
"pairs"
and they consist of a key (the left operand of the C<< => >>), and a
value
(the right operand).
Can pairs also be used to create linke
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:11:12PM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Michele Dondi wrote:
:
: >Speaking of which, while I think that methods on the implicit topicalizer
: >and the C<.=> assignement operator are indeed cool, I wonder if any
: >provision will be made for a conveni
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - adds correct linkage for gpm
>> Some tests fail, though
>> t\pmc\bigint.t 12 307221 12 57.14% 5-10 13-15 18 20-21
> Is there any indication what's going wrong?
Not yet, but I'm looking into it. Might as
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:40:49 +0100
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In situations where A calls B and B tail-calls C, and C produces some
> arbitrary number of return values, I would like to be able to generate
> code for B w
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:50:12PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:33:33PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: > In Perl 6, C<< => >> is a fully-fledged anonymous object constructor --
: > like C<[...]> and C<{...}>. The objects it constructs are called "pairs"
: > an
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:42:49PM -, Clayton, Nik wrote:
> T::H specific, not relevant to TAP.
As T::H is the only complete implementation of TAP and thus is something of
a working reference, it is quite relevant to note where it strays from the
ideal.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:42:49PM -, Clayton, Nik ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> 1. qq{will generate
>
> FAILED tests 1, 3, 6
> Failed 3/6 tests, 50.00% okay}
>
> That's T::H output.
Ok, modified so that it notes that it's T::H output.
> 2. qq{Currently Test::Harness does nothing wi
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In situations where A calls B and B tail-calls C, and C produces some
> arbitrary number of return values, I would like to be able to generate
> code for B without having to care how many values A expects, how many C
> produces, or even whether these numbe
Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - adds correct linkage for gpm
> Some tests fail, though
> t\pmc\bigint.t 12 307221 12 57.14% 5-10 13-15 18 20-21
Is there any indication what's going wrong?
Thanks, applied.
leo
> I specifically left that out. It's an issue that Test::More deals
> with, but doesn't have to. TAP.pod really only deals with
> TAP, not the libs that create it.
Sort of.
1. qq{will generate
FAILED tests 1, 3, 6
Failed 3/6 tests, 50.00% okay}
That's T::H output.
2. qq{Currently T
Steve Peters skribis 2005-02-21 8:08 (-0600):
> Great! I figured I was just missing something. As a followup, is there
> someplace where the raw Pod for the Apocalypses, Exegeses, and Synopses live.
> The Pod versions would be much easier to search in bulk than going through
> the web pages on
As we don't have a copy of POSIX 1003.3 I don't know if we can really
say
I'm not particularly interested in the POSIX stuff. Seems pretty YAGNI
to me.
Instead of just having a POSIX non-compliance section it might be
worthwhile
having a comparision to other testing systems section, including
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Michele Dondi wrote:
Speaking of which, while I think that methods on the implicit topicalizer and
the C<.=> assignement operator are indeed cool, I wonder if any provision
will be made for a convenient stand in for "whatever is on the left side of
an assignment operator", e
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:33:33PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Steve Peters wrote:
>
> >While looking into Perl 6 and pugs, I noticed a problem with Pairs pretty
> >quickly. Although pairs look like a very useful data type, I could find
> >in the "Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials" or any Apocolyp
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be interested in
having some means to perform set operations in perl6: unions,
intersections, differences, membership checks, and subset/superse
"Descriptions should not begin with a digit" -- at the moment this
generates
a warning (in Test::* and libtap). It should probably be documented
that
this is a non-fatal error.
I specifically left that out. It's an issue that Test::More deals
with, but doesn't have to. TAP.pod really only dea
@ Test number
1..6
not ok
ok
not ok
ok
ok
will generate
FAILED tests 1, 3, 6
Would it be possible (useful?) to refine this to
FAILED tests 1, 3
MISSING tests 6
Yes, it would be nice for T::H to report missing tests as missing,
instead of failed. Right now, howe
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:29:59PM -, Clayton, Nik wrote:
> Perhaps a gammar (or just a regex) that describes a fully conforming test
> line would be helpful.
>
> Some comments about POSIX (non-)conformance might be useful, see the DejaGnu
> docs for examples; http://www.gnu.org/software/dejag
David Cantrell wrote:
The practice of bundling third-party modules with yours is IMO very
wrong indeed. If I bundle (eg) Test::Frobnitz, and a hundred other
people bundle Test::Frobnitz, then this leads to two problems:
Agreed. See the earlier advice about the inc/ directory so you can
bundle,
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:19:09AM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > http://www.petdance.com/random/tap.html
> > > Everyone: I still need more comments. Pete Krawczyk's the only one to
> > > provide complaints yet.
>
> There's no discussion of the exit code of the test process.
"Descrip
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:34:24AM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> The practice of bundling third-party modules with yours is IMO very
> wrong indeed. If I bundle (eg) Test::Frobnitz, and a hundred other
> people bundle Test::Frobnitz, then this leads to two problems:
>
> 1. when the author of T
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:33:33PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> In Perl 6, C<< => >> is a fully-fledged anonymous object constructor --
> like C<[...]> and C<{...}>. The objects it constructs are called "pairs"
> and they consist of a key (the left operand of the C<< => >>), and a
>
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:19:09AM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> http://www.petdance.com/random/tap.html
> > Everyone: I still need more comments. Pete Krawczyk's the only one to
> > provide complaints yet.
There's no discussion of the exit code of the test process.
Acknowledgements sho
Steve Peters wrote:
While looking into Perl 6 and pugs, I noticed a problem with Pairs pretty
quickly. Although pairs look like a very useful data type, I could find
in the "Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials" or any Apocolypse or other document
on how to get the key or value from a pair. I was think
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
http://www.petdance.com/random/tap.html
> Everyone: I still need more comments. Pete Krawczyk's the only one to
> provide complaints yet.
@ Test number
1..6
not ok
ok
not ok
ok
ok
will generate
FAILED tests 1, 3, 6
Sorry if this email is nearly duplicated, but I may have had the wrong email
address on the firt email I sent.
While looking into Perl 6 and pugs, I noticed a problem with Pairs pretty
quickly. Although pairs look like a very useful data type, I could find
in the "Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials"
I've been starting to play around with Perl 6 and pugs when I ran into
some questions regarding pairs. I've looked through "Perl 6 and Parrot
Essentials" as well as the Apocolypses and others and haven't found
a good answer. What is the method for retrieving a key or value from a pair?
Steve Pe
Junctions should be on or off by default, I prefer on.
Having them half-on is bad.
Because if it is half-on people(me) is going to write
C< if $x == 3 | 5 | 7 { > in N places then have to
change it and remember to change it in N-1 places. Oops.
ON or OFF. On please.
/Stefan Lidman
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is it ok for a CPAN module to use other modules from CPAN only for the
>> test scripts (e.g. "Text::Diff")?
>
> Yes. See http://phalanx.kwiki.org/index.cgi?StandardDotTFiles for
> examples of .t files that only run if a certain module is installed.
Hmm.
Under "TESTS AND PLANS: The plan," the first sentence of the third
paragraph seems to fit better at the end of the previoius paragraph:
This is a safeguard in case your test dies quietly in the middle
of its run. It should be the first non-diagnostic line output by
your te
Selon Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Second, I know there is a "build_requires" option in Build.PL, but
> > does the CPAN(PLUS).pm know about that option and really only download
> > and use those "build_requires" temporarily during module build/test or
> > does it fully install them?
Mark Stosberg wrote:
On 2005-02-20, Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
General testing question:
Is it ok for a CPAN module to use other modules from CPAN only for the
test scripts (e.g. "Text::Diff")?
Yes. Just declare them as dependencies.
First, I'm not sure about the usage policy. May
47 matches
Mail list logo
