fREW Schmidt wrote:
> I'd like to get started adding these:
>
> is capitalize(:string($a)), "Pugs Is Cool!", "capitalize works with named
> arg"
>
> rakudo and pugs both fail this test. Should I add it anyway?
Yes. We have a mechanism for skipping tests that the implementations
fail. Just write
Hi!
I'd like to get started adding these:
is capitalize(:string($a)), "Pugs Is Cool!", "capitalize works with named
arg"
rakudo and pugs both fail this test. Should I add it anyway? And should I
just mail patches to rakudo...@perl.org? Or should this technically be
pugs?
--
-fREW
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Dave Whipp wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
A few months ago Larry proposed to add some testing
facilites to the language itself, because we want to
culturally encourage testing, and because the test
suite defines the language, so we need to specify the
behaviour of our testing fa
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
4) Testing software is different from debugging or running software. Running
is about providing functionality to the user. Debugging is about getting
expected behaviour and discovering why behaviour exhibited is not what is
expected / specified. T
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:51 PM, jerry gay wrote:
> $x == $y
>:ok({ .true ?? 'message' !! 'failure message' })
>:diag( 'tap comment', :some_tap_property)
I just want to stress again that I would like to see no focus on just tap
emitters. While I realize this is just an example, adverbs
On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Richard Dice wrote:
Thank you for pointing this out
And thanks for reminding me about that, too. It was in my notes, but I
forgot to mention it. I *was* wondering what the circumstance was with
the Perl-related trademarks the O'Reilly has. But if it's general
Will Coleda wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:00:23AM -0800, c...@cvs.perl.org wrote:
Author: coke
Date: Wed Jan 21 09:00:22 2009
New Revision: 35869
Modified:
trunk/languages/perl6/src/classes/Range.pir
Log:
Add a basic
- Original Message
> From: jerry gay
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:22, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> > Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> > But it is interesting to think about the case where a user wants two
> > different diagnostic test messages (to all the testing gurus out there:
> > do you actually
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:22, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> But it is interesting to think about the case where a user wants two
> different diagnostic test messages (to all the testing gurus out there:
> do you actually want such a feature?). It shouldn't be too hard to do;
>
Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
sub sqrt(Num where { 0 <= $_ <= Real::Max } $x) {
(0..$x/2 :by(Real::Epsilon)).min: { abs $x - $^candidate ** 2 }
}
So do you really mean "as declarative a manner as possible"? Or would
you consider this example to go beyond "possib
Ovid wrote:
> One concern is where Larry asks:
>
> I wonder how often we'd have people making the error
> of trying to interpoalte into :ok
>
>
>
> I'd be one of them. The following is a very common idiom:
>
> for my $method (@methods) {
> can_ok $object, $method;
>
The attached patch updates languages/perl6/Test.pm. I realize that with the
new testing discussion, this may be useless in the long run, but if anyone is
hacking on Rakudo now, they might find it useful.
Features:
1. 'no_plan' is now supported:
plan *;
2. Diagnostics:
is 2,3;
#
On Thu Jan 22 06:58:15 2009, coke wrote:
> This is my fault;
>
> I added a simplistic Range.pick without running the spectest.
>
> The original functionality defaulted to flattening the range into a
> list, which made (1..1000).pick.say rather slow.
>
> I added Range.pick() (no args), but m
There are a few interesting points on which I'd like to comment
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> In other words, test functionality sufficient for the compiler may not
> be adequate for module testing. But other functions can be developed in
> Test modules that can be hooked into a general testing ap
# New Ticket Created by Ron Schmidt
# Please include the string: [perl #62634]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=62634 >
The documentation on line 51 of src/ops/pmc.ops still refers to PDD02
which has been sup
# New Ticket Created by Daniel Ruoso
# Please include the string: [perl #62628]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=62628 >
I'd expect the following:
ok(1 ~~ Int, '1 is an Int);
ok(1 ~~ Rat, 'the rational number
Ovid wrote:
> Regarding the disadvantages:
>
>> However nothing in life is free, we pay for it with a
>> few disadvantages:
>> * We nearly double the number of built-in operators
>>by adding an :ok multi
>
> Yes, but conceptually this will be transparent to the end user, right?
> They'll ju
- Original Message
> From: Moritz Lenz
> > test Unit::Customer plan 3 {
> > use Customer;
> > my Customer $cust .= new( :fname, :lname);
> > $cust.fname eq 'Billy' :ok;
> >
> > # plan assumes 2 referrals
> > # won't work because we can't interpolate?
> >
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:00:23AM -0800, c...@cvs.perl.org wrote:
>> Author: coke
>> Date: Wed Jan 21 09:00:22 2009
>> New Revision: 35869
>>
>> Modified:
>>trunk/languages/perl6/src/classes/Range.pir
>>
>> Log:
>> Add a basic vers
# New Ticket Created by Ron Schmidt
# Please include the string: [perl #62588]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=62588 >
The line in the test script read: # 'inspect'() # XXX must fix
'attributes' test
On
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:00:23AM -0800, c...@cvs.perl.org wrote:
> Author: coke
> Date: Wed Jan 21 09:00:22 2009
> New Revision: 35869
>
> Modified:
>trunk/languages/perl6/src/classes/Range.pir
>
> Log:
> Add a basic version of .pick() for Range and hopefully not break anything.
The versio
# New Ticket Created by "Carl Mäsak"
# Please include the string: [perl #62622]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=62622 >
masak: can you submit the 'my Int $x = +"2"' bug please?
* masak submits
rakudo: my In
Moritz Lenz wrote:
$x == 1e5 :ok('the :ok makes this is a test');
I can't help feeling that there's an end-weight problem here: The fact
that it is a test is the essence of statement.
If we're thinking of it as a library, then the MMD way of thinking might
be appropriate: we know it'
# New Ticket Created by "Ifejinelo Onyiah"
# Please include the string: [perl #62612]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=62612 >
I have just updated my parrot & rakudo installation. I ran the spectests:
make te
Moritz Lenz wrote:
A few months ago Larry proposed to add some testing
facilites to the language itself, because we want to
culturally encourage testing, and because the test
suite defines the language, so we need to specify the
behaviour of our testing facilities anyway.
If we're going to reva
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
sub sqrt(Num where { 0 <= $_ <= Real::Max } $x) {
(0..$x/2 :by(Real::Epsilon)).min: { abs $x - $^candidate ** 2 }
}
So do you really mean "as declarative a manner as possible"? Or would
you consider this example to go beyond "possible"?
I would decl
On Tue Jan 13 08:58:08 2009, pmichaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 05:17:16PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >> Confirmed -- there are still issues with lexicals in a
> >> variety of control blocks.
> >>
> >>
> > I skimmed the code for that today. I notice
On Sat Nov 29 17:03:22 2008, masak wrote:
> Rakudo r33329 can't instantiate classes that contain a grammar.
>
> $ perl6 -e 'class A { grammar B {} }; A.new'
> Null PMC access in get_string()
> [...]
Fixed in r35884, and tests added in Pugs r25000 (plus to make sure you
can invoke rules in the nes
On Sun Dec 14 02:13:42 2008, masak wrote:
> In Rakudo r33860, the following happens when you try to put a method
> in an outer class after having defined an inner class:
>
> $ perl6 -e 'class A { class B {}; method x { say self.WHAT } }; A.new.x'
> Null PMC access in get_string()
> [...]
>
> $ pe
On Sun Dec 21 07:55:53 2008, masak wrote:
> rakudo 34202: OUTPUT[Failure]
> rakudo: class Outer { class Inner {} }; say Inner.WHAT
> rakudo 34202: OUTPUT[Inner]
> * masak submits rakudobug
Fixed in r35884, and tests added in Pugs r24999.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
Christoph Otto schrieb:
Christoph Otto via RT wrote:
The attached patch implements this behavior and fixes two core PMCs
that had been doing the inheritance manually. All tests in make test
pass. I didn't bother testing any HLLs as this is more of a "here'
- Original Message
> From: Moritz Lenz
> So Larry and Patrick developed the idea of creating an
> adverb on the test operator instead:
>
> $x == 1e5 :ok('the :ok makes this is a test');
>
> This is an adverb on the infix:<==> operator, and might
> desugar to something like this:
Christoph Otto schrieb:
Christoph Otto via RT wrote:
The attached patch implements this behavior and fixes two core PMCs
that had been doing the inheritance manually. All tests in make test
pass. I didn't bother testing any HLLs as this is more of a "here's
what I'm thinking" patch, but it'
Christoph Otto via RT wrote:
Allison Randal via RT wrote:
Parent and child had to have the same struct in the original (because
every PMC defined the same union val struct), and so still have to have
the same struct in the new version. It is progress: at least the struct
members will have mo
Moritz Lenz wrote:
So I'd like to hear your opinions: do you think
adverb-based testing is a good idea? If you don't like
it, do you see any other good way to tackle the
problems I mentioned above?
After reading everything in this thread to date and in order to
structure my thoughts, I wrot
Allison Randal via RT wrote:
Christoph Otto wrote:
The PMC UnionVal deprecation can't be completed until Parrot has
improved ATTR
reuse between extending PMCs. I'm rewriting code to minimize dependence on
the PMC_x_val macros, but I can't eliminate them completely without better
inheritance su
- Original Message
> From: jerry gay
> since the :ok adverb is modifying the operator, perl knows what kind
> of comparison is being attempted, and can automatically give smart
> diagnostics. this point was taken into consideration when the
> adverbial test syntax was originally design
37 matches
Mail list logo
