A long while back Damian said I should follow up on the subject of
comments in qw// like constructs, and how useful they would be.
So im following up. Juerd said this is the right place.
If its not obvious why this would be nice: qw() is often used as a
list constructor for things like options o
On 7/17/06, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 17/07/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> >
> > > Test names shouldnt be opti
On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a
description for each and every test.
I dont think its that cumbersome at
On 7/17/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
so by now we've had quibbles about the "irregularity" of `skip`,
`can_ok` and `isa_ok`, and a suggestion that the test name always
go first.
Just to clarify, my main point is really that test names should be
mandatory. The fact that m
On 7/17/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many people would prefer that $description always be the last thing you type and
always be something you can provide.
IMO if I were to write a replacement for Test::More id put the
description argument first, and therby make it mandatory.
And then yo
On 7/17/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 02:00]:
> perl -MDBI\ 999
> DBI version 999 required--this is only version 1.50.
> BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
You can use an equals sign instead of a space, there, which makes
it a little ea
On 7/13/06, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
demerphq wrote:
> On 7/12/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David Landgren writes:
>>
>> > Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
>
> And are still sucky as
On 7/13/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
demerphq writes:
> On 7/12/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > David Landgren writes:
> >
> > > Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
>
> And are still sucky
On 7/12/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Landgren writes:
> Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset on the screen making it harder to see the failure.
They strike me as
On 7/11/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 15:28, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whilst I would also like to see something nicer that "got", I'm actually
> > more concerned a
On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:59:27AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
>
> > It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about "got"?
>
> It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt
On 7/10/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-10 20:40]:
> From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > >got: this
> > >expected:that
> >
> > "got" still sucks. Is there any ch
On 7/6/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steffen Mueller wrote:
> Michael G Schwern schrieb:
>> What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8?
>
> * ActivePerl::Config on case-insensitive filesystems interacts
> erroneously with Module::Install's (outdated) @INC hack, so remove it.
> (Patch
On 7/6/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:46 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> $urls = [ grep m!^s?https?:!, @$urls ];
What's an "shttps" link?
That the Sean Connery version...
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
On 5/30/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 12:08, Nicholas Perez wrote:
> Why not compare signatures? Is that not feasible?
Which signatures? Is it important that the code comes from the same place
(check the CV properties) or that the code has bound to the same le
On 5/26/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message
> From: Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Andy Lester wrote:
> > Here's an example of why I'm not real excited about CPANTS:
> >
> > http://community.livejournal.com/perl/120747.html
>
> Ironically, posted by someone that
On 4/24/06, Abe Timmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will raise the question once again "Why don't we use TEST on mswin32?".
Interesting question, especially in light of the fact that TEST doesnt
seem to have any obvious Win32 no-no's, and in fact has Win32 specific
support, so presumably some
On 4/23/06, H.Merijn Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > > failed. If you rely on th
On 4/20/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm thinking too hard, or maybe the results reported aren't
> exactly as clear as they probably should be. Here's an example test and
> its results as reported by Test::Harness with the TODO changes.
>
> #!perl -w
>
> use strict;
> use Te
On 4/20/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:22:33AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > On 4/19/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > BTW, the patch only shows TODO pass status when no failures occur.
> > > >
>
On 4/19/06, David H. Adler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:52:41AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> > Please try out this dev release. I'd like to make it 2.58 tomorrow.
>
> Looks fairly good here. A warning, but nothing show stopping.
>
> ~/Test-Harness-2.57_05 11:55:36% make t
On 4/19/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to handle got/expected failure information in Java or C? There are
> pretty rich data structures we could put out there and YAML might help.
> That would also likely simplify a parser.
If you mean you want pluck YAML test results from a noisy input s
On 4/19/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, the patch only shows TODO pass status when no failures occur.
> >
> > Oh and obviously all of Test::Harness'es tests pass. :-)
>
> This patch doesn't apply against my latest dev version of
> Test::Harness. I'm going to have to massage it
On 4/18/06, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last time I checked the core has "6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED"
> What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
> Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
>
> If so, I think that that would be useful, as i
On 4/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 07 April 2006 05:32, demerphq wrote:
>
> > Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> > operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> > but that only te
On 4/7/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07T08:32:35]
> > Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> > operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> > bu
On 4/7/06, David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, demerphq wrote:
>
> > On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
> >> nobody should be under the
On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
> nobody should be under the impression that using the functions directly
> is in any way a good thing.
>
> The only cases for which it's genuinely useful is asking "ignoring wh
On 4/6/06, Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This underlying behavior is one of my biggest pet peeves with the perl
> community. Too many people want to go out and write their own version of
> modules instead of contributing to the work others began. Diversity is a
> good thing, but to me,
On 4/5/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, I don't dispute the point that it can be wildly obnoxious when
> "Something::Trivial" requires DBD::MySQL and Data::Dump::Streamer when it
> could
> use neither -- or at least rely on AnyDBM and Data::Dumper. It will just
> meant
On 4/4/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to see File::HomeDir ultimately in there, because there's a
> number of things that use $ENV{HOME} and implement their own special
> case logic.
If it presents a platform independent way to find a home dir then I
agree with you.
> You wa
On 4/4/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-04 08:05]:
> > Personally i think the "core is too big" argument is a
> > red-herring given that bandwidth is as cheap as it is these
> > days. Adding a c
On 4/4/06, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> There are also some mistakes, like Switch, but once a module goes in, it
> can never be removed. That's the main reason why people are so leery
> these days of adding new stuff to the core, in case th
On 4/4/06, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (*) Yes, I know that the core Perl distribution includes many modules,
> but ask any P5Porter and he'll answer you that the core is over-crowed
> and that all core modules that can be made dual-life should be released
> on the CPAN.
On 4/4/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >OTOH, who still runs pre-5.8.x code deserves what they get.
> > >
> > >There are horrible bugs in older Perls, and I don't know why people
> > >still
> > >insist using insecure, buggy
On 4/2/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/2/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > demerphq wrote:
> > > On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > Similarly
> > >>> if somebody has an error
On 4/2/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Similarly
> >>> if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
> >>> going to s
On 4/1/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Similarly
> > > if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
> > > going to say that the "installer" doesnt work?
On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Similarly
> > if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
> > going to say that the "installer" doesnt work?
>
> Yes, absolutely.
So you would file a bug with ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build when
the pre-build scrip
On 3/31/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > So it seems to be that you have four (five?) phases:
> >
> > Pre-Build
> > Build
> > Test
> > Install
> > (Post Install Test?)
> >
> > Something like dieing
On 3/31/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an installer can't INSTALL under battle conditions, it is failing
> it's primary missing.
Personally I think its worth being a touch more specific with your language.
I dont see Module::Build's job to be to "install". I see its job as
being
On 30 Mar 2006 07:02:21 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "demerphq" == demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> demerphq> While apparently some on this list apparently dont favour this
> demerphq> approach, im pretty much at a loss to come
On 3/28/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> >> "Only the simplest of designs benefits from pre-coded tests, unless you
> >> have
> >> unlimited developer time."
> > needless to say I just don't believe this.
>
> Try writing a test suite ahead of time for a gra
On 3/18/06, Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moin,
>
> On Saturday 18 March 2006 08:12, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > From my understanding, one of the little idiosyncrasies of
> > Makefile.PL/Build.PL installers (including MI variants of both) is that
> > in order to make sure that the Makefile and Bu
On 3/17/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > The only problem with this is that it only deals with CPAN.pm itself.
> >
> > The problem with locked files is wider than this.
> >
> > Imagine for example that you have Windows mod_perl or some other
> > long-running pro
On 3/16/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> > The main reason this is hapenning is that it's not currently possible to
> > update
> > CORE packages in ActivePerl, so any module that depends on a CORE package
> > can
> > be suffering from this. This problem
On 3/14/06, Jan Dubois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, David Golden wrote:
> > Steve Peters wrote:
> > > The problem was that newer Scalar-List-Utils uses an internal Perl
> > > function that Windows does not see as an exported function. This was
> > > changed with Perl 5.8.8. Onc
On 3/14/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Even better would be adding two more states so that you can
> > distinguish between prereq-failure, build-failure, test-failure and
> > ok.
>
> Well actually I tried to sit down the other day and work out how many
> distinct types of success
On 3/14/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's just that the reporting system has a very limited view of what
> should be stamped green, and what should be stamped red.
I've never like such breakdowns. Even adding only one more state/color
can make it a lot easier to interpret a result
On 3/1/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my experience it has more to do with the particular
> programming community. In Java and Perl, there is a lot of
> emphasis on testing. I don't know about its prevalence in the
> Ruby or Python or other communities, but there is definitely
> a
On 2/5/06, Offer Kaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW Gozer have you looked at the first line:
> Cannot forceunlink D:\cpanrun\build\5-8-0\lib\auto\List\Util\Util.dll:
> Permission denied at D:\cpanrun\build\5-8-0\lib/File/Find.pm line 874
>
> Maybe the script is trying to delete a file that the s
On 2/5/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/1/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Having the test suite quit and say "Sorry, don't use this -- it works better
> > than we expect" seems awfully silly. Again, there's already a way to
On 2/1/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having the test suite quit and say "Sorry, don't use this -- it works better
> than we expect" seems awfully silly. Again, there's already a way to catch
> your (rare) catastrophic bonus tests -- capture and check their return
> values.
Yes it is
On 1/31/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:31, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > Hmm. That's a good point. Maybe the way to approach this would be
> > to include a default harness for use by developer tools, which
> > would include more chattiness about passing TODO te
On 1/31/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 12:22, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> Adding more information to the default Test::Harness summary doesn't make
> sense to me. It's a user tool. It's important to list failures there, as
> the code might not work right, but unex
On 1/31/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 11:44, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > * chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-31 19:40]:
>
> > >Write your own. perldoc Test::Harness::Straps or see the
> > >examples in chapter 3 of the Perl Testing book:
> >
> > That's not
On 1/31/06, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2006, at 10:40 AM, demerphq wrote:
>
> > While only indirectly related.
> >
> > Lately when ive built blead I see stuff like "10 TODO tests
> > unexpectedly passed!"
> >
> >
On 1/31/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my test-first TODO test management paradox:
>
> If I write a failing test and share it through the central repo,
> the smoke bot fails and keeps sending us e-mail until it is fixed,
> which can be annoying when these are un-implemented f
On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>So how, then, do I tell the testing system "this module only works on
> >>Unix-like filesystems on Unix-like OSes"
On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>
> > A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it believes it
> > has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the module, but when
> > it tries to install tests fail.
>
> So how, then, do I tell the
On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Closs wrote:
> PPM is only really useful on Windows. It makes sense for it to bundled
> with the main Windows port of perl, but not to include it otherwise.
I don't know if I buy that. Im assuming that ppm is bundled with all
of the AS
On 12/29/05, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 12:40:25PM +0100, demerphq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Since you are working on Test::Harness and prove i wonder what the status
> > is of
> >
> > https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display
On 12/26/05, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 10:49:28PM +0200, Shlomi Fish ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > However prove does not have a "--perl" switch:
>
> Fixed in Test::Harness 2.57_01. Thanks.
Since you are working on Test::Harness and prove i wonder what t
On 12/18/05, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/17/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 December 2005 08:23, demerphq wrote:
> >
> > > It seemed to me that
> > > a better patch would be to change the way harness handles
On 12/17/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 17 December 2005 08:23, demerphq wrote:
>
> > It seemed to me that
> > a better patch would be to change the way harness handles directives
> > so it recognizes TODO & SKIP as being a valid directiv
On 12/16/05, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real bummer, though, is that I'm now away until Jan 3rd and I'm
> switching my machine off now, so you can't see the fruits of your
> efforts in my overnight smokes until next year :-(
If its any help to you guys I built and tested just now o
On 9/26/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 06:00:04PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > Is there a proper way to test both parts of dual implementation modules?
> >
> > In a pinch i came up with
> >
> > use DynaLoader;
>
Is there a proper way to test both parts of dual implementation modules?
In a pinch i came up with
use DynaLoader;
sub DynaLoader::bootstrap{1}; # Don't dynaload anything please.
use Scalar::Util qw(refaddr); #pure perl implementation
to disable an XS implementation of a module that used
This is a bug report for perl from [EMAIL PROTECTED],
generated with the help of perlbug 1.35 running under perl v5.8.6.
-
[Please enter your report here]
Attached is test case that when run under Test::Harness and
Devel::Cover will c
On 9/22/05, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:26:27PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > And, it doesnt help that something about DC breaks the defined
> > operator when dealing with overloaded objects. (yeah, he did say the
> > code
On 9/21/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I had my eyes opened by Devel::Cover. I thought I had pretty good
> coverage in Regexp::Assemble. In fact I had about 60%. I lifted it up to
> 100% statement coverage (some branching and conditional paths are never
> taken, but they are
On 9/15/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
> pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage >= 80%, and
> another for 100%, and how absolutely impossible it would be to set out
> to establish these points
On 8/11/05, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X-Posted to Perlmonks (http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=483100)
>
> I frequently write code that generates anonymous functions on the fly.
> However, I often want to verify that these functions are correct
> without executing them. To this end, I
On 7/26/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:51:01AM -0300, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
> > Instead of giving the seed for shuffling, the list can be predetermined
> > with the C argument.
> >
> > $ prove -b -D -d -s --list=1,2,0,3,4 0 1 2 3 4
> >
> > will run
Schwern wrote:
> The little RSS icon in the lower right only gives an
> option to subscribe to the "recent notes" feed.
>
> A daily email digest would be nice for those of us who prefer push and
> live in our MTAs not our web browsers.
Did you see Tim O'Reilly's note:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pu
(apologies about the slow follow up)
On 7/4/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 12:36:29AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Would using
> > >
> > > my $s = su
On 7/4/05, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:53:45PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > Actually about the only thing that seems to be really "hard" is doing
> > comparison of blessed regexes with overloaded stringification.
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 12:32:01PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How about
> > >
> > > my $a = [];
> > > my $b = [];
> > > my $s = sub { $_[0] == $a; }
> > > is_deeply($
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:53:45PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > > > The entire bas
On 7/3/05, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
> > suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
&g
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
> suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
> things like Test::Builder::Tester. Using the TBT approach would have saved
> me from
On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
> > you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end
> > resu
On 7/3/05, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I (and I think Yves) had always been thinking in terms of 2 structures
> that had been produced independently, that is nothing in $a can be
> part of $b but that's not realistic. In real test scripts, chunks of
> the expected and the received valu
On 7/2/05, Eirik Berg Hanssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> is_deeply($x, $y); # Equal, but "should" not be:
> $x .= ""; # after the "same" modification
> $y .= ""; # of the two things, they are
> is_deeply($x, $y); # not equal!
But its no
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another issue I had is that its not particularly clear what the deal
> > is with an import method per package. Why is it necessary to recode
> > (slightly differently everywhere) the import routine? I personally
> > would have found it muc
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:10:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
> > comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
> &
On 7/3/05, Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
> > with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
> > just add an extra method.
>
> I think it w
On 7/3/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:10 +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > Anyway, maybe ive gotten this all muddled and these arent issues
> > people should worry about for some good reason or another.
>
> I certainly have a fuzzy i
Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
issues with the process.
Writing test modules isn't well explained. The pointers to look at
other modules are IMO not too helpful. You have to spend quite a whil
On 7/2/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> > In short, I think most agree that we're talking about two separate
> > things and that neither is wrong, so if someone wants to pitch a
> > solution rather than continue a long email
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>
> >>x=y; but x,x != y,y?
> >
> >
> > but rather
> >
> > x=y, but x,x != y,z
>
> But if we say
>x=y and x=z can we then say that x,x != y,z
>
> If s
On 7/2/05, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a way of looking at it that doesn't require you to consider
> what happens if you alter the structures.
>
> Let's say you have a Person class with a Name an Age and a House class
> with Owner and Resident.
>
> Now imagine there are 2 peop
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>
> > I wasn't suggesting that this should fail and wouldnt suggest it should
> > either.
> >
> > I was suggesting that
> >
> > my $a=[];
> > is_deeply([$a,$a],
On 7/2/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 08:55 +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
> > you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end
> > result is the
On 7/1/05, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've always thought of C as being about the 'shape' of a
> > data
> > structure. When you think of things in this way, then it seems
> > obvious that given
> >
> > $a = [], $b = [], $c = []
> >
> > then
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:28:29AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> > So, just for the sake of argument, imagine I write a class where I
> > periodically returns array refs to the user. I do this by building
> > them every time they're called. Later,
On 7/1/05, _brian_d_foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Demerphq
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of
On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
> >>equivalence. I'd like comm
On 7/1/05, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq writes:
>
> > Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
> > They are exclusive.
>
> Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
> different people
On 7/1/05, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
> > function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
> > [$b,$c] to come out equal.
> >
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
