On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:43:35PM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
> I have checked the factorial example on
> http://www.parrotcode.org/examples/pasm.html.
>
> Starting with 13! incorrect results are indeed returned on my 32bit
> Linux machine.
I'm not surprised, the values listed on t
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> What do you mean "has become" all the modules you encountered are at least 2
> years old but apart form anything that's a bit like coplaining about how
> complex the world of coputers has become, it used to be that I could just
> swi
Fergal Daly wrote:
There is a genuine problem here though and that's the fact that MakeMaker
and possibly Module::Build don't allow you to specify testing requirements
separately from building requirements and run time requirements but most
people don't ever see it thanks to CPAN.pm.
The curr
Joshua Hoblitt schrieb:
I'm not surprised, the values listed on that webpage for !13, !14 and
!15 are wrong.
According to my lisp interpreter the correct values (Google confirmed)
are:
13! = 6227020800
14! = 87178291200
15! = 1307674368000
Well, the problem is that Parrot indeed re
Hi,
Larry Wall wrote:
> The only questions in my mind are whether Perl 5's \($a,$b) is
> what people expect (it's arguably counterintuitive to newbies),
> and whether there's some other construct that would more naturally
> construct a list of references. It's not just \« though, since it
> has t
> [lbr - Fr 08. Aug 2003, 08:45:43]:
>
> We'll postpone deciding on this one until later - I've attached a
> patch to env.t that tests the env-implementation on all platforms, and
> doesn't fail on Solaris.
I'd like to reopen this ticket, as the issue isn't really resolved.
There is still a skipp
> Matt Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The attached env.patch patches classes/env.pmc to add vtable methods
> > elements() and get_iter() and modifies get_string_keyed() to also
> > accept integer keys so that it is possible to use an Iterator on the
> > environment.
I have applied this
You wrote:
> This is a mini-rant on how complex the tesing world for Perl modules has
> become. It starts harmless, like you want to install some module. This
> time it was CPAN-Depency.
>
> Since for security reasons your Perl box is not connected to the net, you
> fetch it and all dependencies f
> > Either they're valuable enough that you install their prerequisites or
> > they're not.
>
> But how am I supposed to find this out? I dont even know whether the
> required modules are used for the tests only, without digging through the
> source...
Usually, Test::* modules are only used for t
Usually, Test::* modules are only used for the test phase.
I really don't understand the idea of "only used for the test phase",
as if the tests don't matter, or if there are levels of failure.
Either they install OK on the target system, and you can use them
with confidence, and they've
Andy Lester wrote:
Usually, Test::* modules are only used for the test phase.
I really don't understand the idea of "only used for the test phase",
as if the tests don't matter, or if there are levels of failure.
Either they install OK on the target system, and you can use them with
con
Andy Lester wrote:
>> Usually, Test::* modules are only used for the test phase.
>
>
> I really don't understand the idea of "only used for the test phase",
there is clearly a distinction between the code required for a given module
to compile and run in a production environment and the code r
yeah, well, you could say that. last time I installed my washer I
said
"looks pretty level to me, but I know where my level is if it makes
a racket"
That's fine, but I'm still not shipping my washing machines without
explicit instructions to level the damn thing. Similarly, I'm not
maki
Andy Lester wrote:
>> yeah, well, you could say that. last time I installed my washer I said
>> "looks pretty level to me, but I know where my level is if it makes a
>> racket"
>
>
> That's fine, but I'm still not shipping my washing machines without
> explicit instructions to level the dam
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
> Well, the problem is that Parrot indeed returns the incorrect values
> that are
> mentioned in the webpage.
I happen to get the correct answers out to 20! but only because I'm on
64bit hardware. The real issue is that the C
> From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On 9/11/05, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I have some questions about how Roles will behave in certain
>> instances, and when/where/what $?ROLE should be bound too.
>>
>> 1) Given this example, where 'bar' is a method stub (
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:29:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> It's not valid perl 4:
>
> $ perl4 -e 'no 5; print "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"'
> syntax error in file /tmp/perl-em47tij at line 1, next 2 tokens "no 5"
> Execution of /tmp/perl-em47tij aborted due to compilation errors.
$ perl1 -e 'no 4;
I've found that by using Module::Install, I can often just bundle those
small miscellaneous testing modules, and occasionally a few of their
dependencies.
And for something simple as "the tests don't generate warnings", I would
think "module has excessive dependencies" is a bug in Test::Deep,
-J
--
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
> Well, the problem is that Parrot indeed returns the incorrect values
> that are
> mentioned in the webpage.
I'd like to propose that we fix the n! values listed on the examples page,
change the code example to the snip
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:01:50AM -0400, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> The current MakeMaker has support for adding arbitrary data to META.yml,
> so it can also provide info to installers. However, I doubt MakeMaker
> itself will every know anything about or use such requirements &
> recommendations.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:52:41PM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> I've always thought tests passing should be a requisite of make by
> default. Make fails if tests fail. There should of course be a
> -skiptests to opt out of testing for those who insist on not doing it,
> but for the most p
On 9/11/05, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And for something simple as "the tests don't generate warnings", I would
> think "module has excessive dependencies" is a bug in Test::Deep, rather
> than a more general problem.
I'd say "obvious", "necessary" and "a simple idea" but if you thi
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 23:51:56 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> I've found that by using Module::Install, I can often just bundle those small
> miscellaneous testing modules, and occasionally a few of their dependencies.
>
> And for something simple as "the tests don't generate warnings", I would
If you get hit by a truck and someone updates Test::Moose to take
care of a bug, who will update your bundled version?
Simple. Because I don't bundle it by hand, Module::Install does it.
Bundling things by hand would be WAY too much work.
The next time someone else rolls the build, it autom
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 09:36 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > If you do realize, but it takes you 3 days to update once mainline
> > was fixed, and it takes mainline 3 days to update once Joe Random's
> > patch was submitted, why should new users from these 3 days get a
> > buggy, outdated version wh
The following excerpt is from Richard Feynman's essay "Personal observations
on the reliability of the Shuttle".
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html
I find it covers a testing topic I have a little trouble explaining to
testing newbies, that being the advantages of bottom up te
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:36:28 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>
> >If you get hit by a truck and someone updates Test::Moose to take
> >care of a bug, who will update your bundled version?
>
> Simple. Because I don't bundle it by hand, Module::Install does it. Bundling
> things by hand would be WA
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:22:05 +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> It still promotes:
I forgot:
* unnecessary rolling and rerolling of distribution tarballs
with no real merit but updating the bundled code causes
version space pollution, and makes users who update annoyed
On Sep 11, 2005, at 7:25 PM, chromatic wrote:
I don't feel as confident as you do that if the tests all passed on
your
machine that they'll automatically pass everywhere.
THIS is my biggest point. It's not about the quality of the code so
much as making sure the code fits with the target
29 matches
Mail list logo
