"Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of you might be interested in this article on test-first development
> by Danny Faught, all the more relevant as he is working with Perl.
>
> http://tejasconsulting.com/articles/test-first.html
There's an article by some bloke about test driven
> > http://tejasconsulting.com/articles/test-first.html
>
> There's an article by some bloke about test driven development in this
> month's Perl Journal.
AND there's one lined up for the upcoming issue of The Perl Review!
--
'Andy Lester[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programmer/author petdance.
Piers Cawley writes:
> Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Paul writes:
> >
> > > My P7 syntax is still weak, though. Maybe
> > >
> > > given big_calc() { return $_ if $_ }
> >
> > Using C works in Perl 5. Is there anything preventing this
> > working in Perl 6:
> >
> > for big_calc()
I had been assuming that Perl 6 would continue the tradition that
anonymous subroutines don't have names.
'Synopsis 6' contains this line:
On an anonymous subroutine, any return type can only go after the
name:
Which "name" would that be?
The example given:
$lay = sub returns Egg {...}
Smylers wrote:
> I had been assuming that Perl 6 would continue the tradition that
> anonymous subroutines don't have names.
>
> 'Synopsis 6' contains this line:
>
> On an anonymous subroutine, any return type can only go after the
> name:
>
> Which "name" would that be?
>
> The example giv
