--- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 mea
--- Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you mean you want pluck YAML test results from a noisy input
> > stream I'd say youd probably be wrong.
Naturally, I forgot to include the most compelling argument. The
"noisy input stream" is noisy only because we've never tamed it. If it
becomes well-
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19T04:02:31]
> From a parser standpoint, there's no clean way of distinguishing that
> from what the test functions are going to output. As a result, I
> really think that "diag" and normal test failure information should be
> marked differently (instead of the
Andy Lester wrote in perl.qa :
> Please try out this dev release. I'd like to make it 2.58 tomorrow.
Now integrated into bleadperl, all tests pass here.
--
* What system had proved more effective?
* Indirect suggestion implicating selfinterest.
-- Ulysses
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 19 06:01:46 2006
New Revision: 8877
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S06: two trivial syntax typos.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.po
Not sure if this is p6l or p6c... Fallback to the latter. :)
In this line:
[Dog ::T $ ($x) where 1, *$, [EMAIL PROTECTED] := moose();
the left hand side is probably not a valid Perl 6 expression, yet
according to the current spec, it needs to be parsed implicitly as if a
:() is around it.
Ho
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 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 test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/local/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::
I'm exploring my options for use case testing of Web apps in Perl. Does any
have any experience, recommendations or resources to suggest on the topic?
We're working on some pretty complicated Web apps (written in Perl) and
while we have our unit testing well under control, our development of mech
t
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:08:29PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: Not sure if this is p6l or p6c... Fallback to the latter. :)
:
: In this line:
:
:[Dog ::T $ ($x) where 1, *$, [EMAIL PROTECTED] := moose();
:
: the left hand side is probably not a valid Perl 6 expression, yet
: according to the
Just a quick clarification of the POD
(http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Test-Harness-2.56/lib/Test/Harness/TAP.pod#Diagnostics)
Description
Any text after the test number but before a # is the description of
the test point.
ok 42 this is the description of the test
Earlier it states t
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19 10:05]:
> --- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I should think that youd have a much easier time using
> > Data::Dumper and its ->Pad and ->Indent(0) method than you
> > ever would with YAML.
>
> That fails when we have PHP, C, or Java producing the
> i
* A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19 19:10]:
> Use JSON. It’s cross-language, can fit data structures on a
> single line, is reasonably widely supported, and can even be
> read by a YAML parser.
Oh, and I forgot: in contrast to YAML, the spec is so simple
that it’s trivial to cook an imp
Here's my thought as to why lexicals are now failing in tcl:
When PDD20 hit, tcl was reworked to use .HLL_map of .LexPad
to .DynLexPad, then walked up the lexpad whenever trying to access
lexicals.
When PDD21 hit, I replaced all use of
.namespace [ 'Tcl' ]
with
.HLL 'Tcl', 'tcl_group'
.n
After some discussion on IRC, we have all declarators implying a signature
syntax, either with parens for full sig or without for a limited one arg
syntax:
my Int $x = 1;
my (Int $x where Odd, Dog $spot = fido()) := (1,$lassie);
The sigil or the parens still control the context of the rig
On 4/19/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19T04:02:31]
> > From a parser standpoint, there's no clean way of distinguishing that
> > from what the test functions are going to output. As a result, I
> > really think that "diag" and normal test failu
On 4/18/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The aformentioned change to Test::Builder broke 3 different Test-Testing
> modules that relied on it.
3? I only know of 2 - Test::Builder::Tester (which scrapes and broke)
and Test::Tester (which doesn't scrape and didn't break). Is there
anoth
On 4/18/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Test.Simple—JavaScript. It looks and acts just like tap, although in
> > reality it's tracking test results in an object rather than scraping
> > them from a print buffer.
> >
> >http://openjsan.org/d
On Apr 19, 2006, at 12:14, Fergal Daly wrote:
One other reason (that I didn't see mentioned) is that objects imply
that the harness and tests are in the same process which means that
the tests can corrupt the harness and that the harness can fail to
report if the test process dies,
Well, the h
On 4/19/06, David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2006, at 12:14, Fergal Daly wrote:
>
> > One other reason (that I didn't see mentioned) is that objects imply
> > that the harness and tests are in the same process which means that
> > the tests can corrupt the harness and that the
Based on what I've gleaned from
http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Test-Harness-2.56/lib/Test/Harness/TAP.pod#Diagnostics,
here's a first pass at an EBNF grammar for TAP. Note that it's
incomplete, but it should be a good start for folks to at least think
about this.
Cheers,
Ovid
(*
For the t
Excellent.
Matt found an extraneous .HLL that had crept in, breaking the lexpad
stuff. Removed that, all is working. So, apparently, we already
*were* being clever enough, except for one bit of stupid.
Thanks, Matt!
On Apr 19, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
Here's my thought as to
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19T15:24:51]
> On 4/19/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There are other things that test test output, like Test::Tester. Will they
> > break? To find out, I downloaded a pristene copy of the latest Test-Simple
> > and Test-Tester and
I can't remember the exact list off the top of my head.
At the time, I did the cascade tracing by hand using the CPANTS webpage,
it took for-bloody-ever. The only reason I kept doing as deep as I did
was that I kept being astonished at what was getting caught in the web.
There's been somethin
On 19-Apr-06, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Gianni wrote:
I'm exploring my options for use case testing of Web apps in Perl.
Does any
have any experience, recommendations or resources to suggest on the
topic?
We're working on some pretty complicated Web apps (written in Perl)
and
while we have our unit
25 matches
Mail list logo
