On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:49:35PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: This get back to defining the focus/level of the testing that we want to
: achieve. Some of these items may make sense for paranoid testing; but
: not as part of a comprehensive test suite.
Er, I thought it was paranoia that makes a t
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:56:32PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
>> assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
>> should do them using perl's standard testing format (i
Dave Whipp wrote:
Richard Nuttall wrote:
Writing a complete test suite really also needs reasonable knowledge
of how the internals are written in order to understand the kinds of
tests that are likely to provoke errors. (More thoughts on this if
requested).
[...]
Consider item 0. Do we nee
Richard Nuttall wrote:
I agree with that. take the example of reverse (array) in this thread.
Really, the testing should have a number of other tests to be complete,
including thorough testing of boundary conditions.
e.g. - tests of reverse on
0. undef
1. Empty list
2. (0..Inf) - Error ?
3. Mixe
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
The fact that we don't need C is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!
Right, so whats wrong with using one of parrot's most basic ops? Thats
all perl6 print
is; a small wrapper around a basic parrot feature
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:43:01 +, Dave Whipp wrote:
> I see where you are coming from ... but is the IO infrastructure really the
> most primitive thing to rely on? It may be at the moment; but I expect
> that it will become more complex. C may be a built-in right now;
> but it should probably m
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
The fact that we don't need C is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!
Right, so whats wrong with using one of parrot's most basic ops? Thats
all perl6 print
is; a small wrapper around
"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
> assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
> should do them using perl's standard testing format (i.e. Test::More,
> Test::Harness, etc.)
I would argue that we sho
"Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3DD0674C.1080708@;osu.edu...
> A module? For something as basic as print?
> I hope not, that would certainly be a pain.
My understanding is that C will be a method on C (or
whatever), which has a default invocant of $stdout. This module m
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 05:43:01PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> One thing the "golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into
>> and out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
>> perl6/parrot to do just about the mi
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the
"golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and
out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes
verification
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
documentation, not code. An obvious question is how to extend it to be a
more thorough test, whilst not spoiling the documentation. We'd want to
intersperse text with the test-code; and probably mark a few bits as
"hidden", from a normal documentation view (levels of hiding m
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the
"golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and
> out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
> perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes
> verification off to outside t
> Hm. I'm not sure how well it goes with the Perl philosophy ("the perl
> language is what the perl interpreter accepts"), but we could embed the
> _real_ test cases in whatever formal spec happens. This would be the
> excruciatingly boring document only read by people trying to implement
> perl
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Dave Whipp wrote:
> This is fine as a test, but not as documentation. Furthermore, it is
> depending on the "print" statement for its comparison (not necessarily bad;
> but I find that "golden-output" style tests tend to become difficult to
> maintain -- specific assertions ten
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > languages/perl6/t/*/*.t is
what we've got, though they're intended to
> exercise the prototype compiler, not the "real language" (which looks like
> it's changing quite a bit from what's implemented).
OK, lets take a specific test. builtins/array.t conta
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
> I think it'd be useful for folks to get a pointer to some existing Perl
> 6 tests that they can model off of. Do any exist yet?
languages/perl6/t/*/*.t is what we've got, though they're intended to
exercise the prototype compiler, not the "real language"
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 03:33 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Otherwise, they're just normal tests and are handled by things like
Test::Tutorial, Test::More and Test.pm. Details on the test output
protocol
can be found in Test::Harness.
I think it'd be useful for folks to get a pointer
In order for TODO tests to work Test::Harness must be upgraded (only 5.8.0
ships with a T::H able to parse TODO tests). An upgraded version of
Test::Harness can simply be distributed with Parrot the same way Test::More
is.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:31:50PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> I can't
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Can anyone write up a detailed document describing how one would go about
> writing Perl6 test cases and submitting them to Parrot? The parrot
> documentation on testing, is understandably focused on testing parrot...
> not the languages running on parrot.
>
> I can't find
From: David Wheeler [mailto:david@;wheeler.net]
> On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 07:36 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> > # simple substitution
> > my $var = "perl5";
> > $var =~ s/\d/6/;
> >
> > While this is completely valid perl6, and something that
> > might want to be included in the regex test
21 matches
Mail list logo
