Hi
I assume that BDD(Behavior Driven Development) and the vocabulary that
it implies is not a good choice
at this stage ?
:describe("");
$x.should be(1e5) :it("");
and that a module based on the core testing facilities can be built if
someone feels like to.
Well, the vocabulary that i
Dave Whipp wrote:
I do agree that a prelude.pm should be written atas higher level as
possible, but I would not that Perl6 is not a "declarative" language.
Using the most powerful operators available (I'd like to see more of
them) is about the best you can do: as soon at you start using
codebl
Larry observed:
> My feeling on this is that the compiler should simply hardwire this
> particular adverb so that all the tests can be autogenerated, and the
> multi system never needs to see those versions.
I strongly agree.
> We are merely hijacking the adverb syntax so that is clear which
>
Hi,
I pretty much like this idea. Very perl6ish :)
- I don't think it's important whether it is called :ok, :OK or :test or
:wellhowdidthatworkout. I assume people who will be testing their
modules/code/etc. will be using more advanced modules for testing
anyway. This is for testing the imple
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> So Larry and Patrick developed the idea of creating an
> adverb on the test operator instead:
>
>$x == 1e5 :ok('the :ok makes this is a test');
>
> This is an adverb on the infix:<==> operator, and might
> desugar to something like this:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 08:08:57PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: * We nearly double the number of built-in operators
:by adding an :ok multi
My feeling on this is that the compiler should simply hardwire
this particular adverb so that all the tests can be autogenerated,
and the multi system nev
A few months ago Larry proposed to add some testing
facilites to the language itself, because we want to
culturally encourage testing, and because the test
suite defines the language, so we need to specify the
behaviour of our testing facilities anyway.
We also discussed some possible changes to t
Oh,... i see.
Fixed That!
On 19 ene, 15:09, mor...@faui2k3.org (Moritz Lenz) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> dev.null.box wrote:
> > Yes, yes, i know. There is an official perl6 wiki. But, i think a more
> > "friendly" wiki is needed, so i just started a new mediawiki one in
> >http://perl6.wikia.com
>
> I app
fREW Schmidt wrote:
> I just recently read Ovid's post on use Perl about how we can help by
> fixing PUGS tests. I was a little clear on what he meant and I am a
> little anxious to do something. I checked out the code for parrot
> already and I am getting the pugs code while I write this. Anyon
Darren Duncan wrote:
1. What we *should* be doing with the Prelude, like with STD.pm, is
write under the assumption that the implementation is also written in
Perl 6.
We should write the Prelude in as declarative a manner as possible,
saying *what* we want to happen rather than how, such as
Hi,
dev.null.box wrote:
> Yes, yes, i know. There is an official perl6 wiki. But, i think a more
> "friendly" wiki is needed, so i just started a new mediawiki one in
> http://perl6.wikia.com
I appreciate your effort, and at the same time I'd like to ask you (and
your fellow contributor(s)) to ac
> Since the tests are all written in Perl 6, you have to learn at least a
> bit of the language.
I figured that; I just wanted to start off with perl6 before I did
anything in PIR.
> In the pugs repo there's a file in t/TASKS that contains a list of
> things to be done - maybe you can start there
12 matches
Mail list logo
