[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-12-11 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT 
Tests: https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/20d67a3d4d

[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-12-11 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT 
Tests: https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/20d67a3d4d

[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-21 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT 
You're right, sorry, I should've been more clear.

Tickets are not closed without tests, but as you pointed out not everything
should be spec-ed. That's correct. Therefore, some tests go to
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/tree/nom/t (these tests can be changed at any
moment and don't serve as a guarantee for anything, they exist merely to keep
rakudo from regressing).
I don't know if there are docs on that topic anywhere. I mentioned it in the
squashathon guide
(https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/wiki/Rakudo-SQUASHathon-Guide#resolving-testneeded-tickets)
but we probably need a proper explanation somewhere.

On 2017-10-21 11:54:34, allber...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Brad Gilbert via RT <
> perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:18:46 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-10-21#i_15334639
> > >
> > > I' think we should test that both are listed, and we can close the
> > > ticket.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think we should force all future implementations to add BUILDALL.
> >
>
> Being listed in the methods does not mean part of the spec. I mean, if it
> did then .^methods wouldn't be allowed to show user added methods either.
> Or did you mean something else here? in which case you need to explain it
> better.
>

Re: [perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-21 Thread Brandon Allbery via RT 
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Brad Gilbert via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:18:46 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-10-21#i_15334639
> >
> > I' think we should test that both are listed, and we can close the
> > ticket.
> >
>
> I don't think we should force all future implementations to add BUILDALL.
>

Being listed in the methods does not mean part of the spec. I mean, if it
did then .^methods wouldn't be allowed to show user added methods either.
Or did you mean something else here? in which case you need to explain it
better.

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh   sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com  ballb...@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonadhttp://sinenomine.net

Re: [perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-21 Thread Brandon Allbery 
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Brad Gilbert via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:18:46 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-10-21#i_15334639
> >
> > I' think we should test that both are listed, and we can close the
> > ticket.
> >
>
> I don't think we should force all future implementations to add BUILDALL.
>

Being listed in the methods does not mean part of the spec. I mean, if it
did then .^methods wouldn't be allowed to show user added methods either.
Or did you mean something else here? in which case you need to explain it
better.

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh   sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com  ballb...@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonadhttp://sinenomine.net

[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-21 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT 
“I don't think we should force all future implementations to add BUILDALL.”

Not sure what this remark is for. Can be rakudo tests.

On 2017-10-21 09:12:32, brad wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:18:46 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-10-21#i_15334639
> >
> > I' think we should test that both are listed, and we can close the
> > ticket.
> >
>
> I don't think we should force all future implementations to add
> BUILDALL.
> Especially since Rakudo didn't need this added to work correctly.
>
> > On 2017-10-13 04:50:32, elizabeth wrote:
> > > > On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:52, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via
> > > > RT)
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > # New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
> > > > # Please include the string: [perl #132283]
> > > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this
> > > > issue.
> > > > # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132283 >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Code:
> > > > class Foo { has $.bar }; my $f = Foo.new(bar=>'u'); say
> > > > $f.^methods;
> > > >
> > > > ¦«2015.12»:
> > > > (bar)
> > > >
> > > > ¦«2016.06»:
> > > > (bar)
> > > >
> > > > ¦«2016.12»:
> > > > (bar)
> > > >
> > > > ¦«2017.06»:
> > > > (bar)
> > > >
> > > > ¦«f72be0f130cf»:
> > > > (bar BUILDALL)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bisectable points at two relevant commits:
> > > > First it was BUILDALL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION after
> > > >
> >
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/9837687d93c907ec232b1c7635776aa0c7faa6bc
> > > > Now it is BUILDALL after
> > > >
> >
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/63cf246fd4caa43c52a212054a98e9b450c54127
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if BUILDALL should be listed or not. My gut feeling
> > > > says
> > > > that it shouldn't be, but feel free to argue otherwise. I'm just
> > > > the
> > > > messenger.
> > >
> > > Well, it *is* an auto-generated method that is installed in the
> > > namespace. Just like “bar”. So either we should show both, or
> > > neither. Or introduce a flag to include/exclude auto-generated
> > > methods. But then we would need to mark those methods as auto-
> > > generated somehow.
>
> I think BUILDALL is different than bar for several reasons,
> it is all uppercase (which usually means it is special)
> it is only an optimization
> the programmer didn't use a pragma to add it
> the programmer didn't even implicitly declare it
>
> (I mean that ｢has $.bar｣ as an implicit declaration
> of a method of the same name)
>
> So I think discussing whether this use of BUILDALL needs to be hidden
> can be
> discussed independently of whether an atribute method needs to be
> hidden.

[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-21 Thread Brad Gilbert via RT 
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:18:46 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-10-21#i_15334639
> 
> I' think we should test that both are listed, and we can close the
> ticket.
> 

I don't think we should force all future implementations to add BUILDALL.
Especially since Rakudo didn't need this added to work correctly.

> On 2017-10-13 04:50:32, elizabeth wrote:
> > > On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:52, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT)
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > # New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
> > > # Please include the string: [perl #132283]
> > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this
> > > issue.
> > > # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132283 >
> > >
> > >
> > > Code:
> > > class Foo { has $.bar }; my $f = Foo.new(bar=>'u'); say
> > > $f.^methods;
> > >
> > > ¦«2015.12»:
> > > (bar)
> > >
> > > ¦«2016.06»:
> > > (bar)
> > >
> > > ¦«2016.12»:
> > > (bar)
> > >
> > > ¦«2017.06»:
> > > (bar)
> > >
> > > ¦«f72be0f130cf»:
> > > (bar BUILDALL)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bisectable points at two relevant commits:
> > > First it was BUILDALL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION after
> > >
> https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/9837687d93c907ec232b1c7635776aa0c7faa6bc
> > > Now it is BUILDALL after
> > >
> https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/63cf246fd4caa43c52a212054a98e9b450c54127
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know if BUILDALL should be listed or not. My gut feeling
> > > says
> > > that it shouldn't be, but feel free to argue otherwise. I'm just
> > > the
> > > messenger.
> >
> > Well, it *is* an auto-generated method that is installed in the
> > namespace. Just like “bar”. So either we should show both, or
> > neither. Or introduce a flag to include/exclude auto-generated
> > methods. But then we would need to mark those methods as auto-
> > generated somehow.

I think BUILDALL is different than bar for several reasons,
it is all uppercase (which usually means it is special)
it is only an optimization
the programmer didn't use a pragma to add it
the programmer didn't even implicitly declare it

(I mean that ｢has $.bar｣ as an implicit declaration
of a method of the same name)

So I think discussing whether this use of BUILDALL needs to be hidden can be
discussed independently of whether an atribute method needs to be hidden.

[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-21 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT 
https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-10-21#i_15334639

I' think we should test that both are listed, and we can close the ticket.

On 2017-10-13 04:50:32, elizabeth wrote:
> > On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:52, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT)
> >  wrote:
> >
> > # New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
> > # Please include the string: [perl #132283]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> > # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132283 >
> >
> >
> > Code:
> > class Foo { has $.bar }; my $f = Foo.new(bar=>'u'); say $f.^methods;
> >
> > ¦«2015.12»:
> > (bar)
> >
> > ¦«2016.06»:
> > (bar)
> >
> > ¦«2016.12»:
> > (bar)
> >
> > ¦«2017.06»:
> > (bar)
> >
> > ¦«f72be0f130cf»:
> > (bar BUILDALL)
> >
> >
> >
> > Bisectable points at two relevant commits:
> > First it was BUILDALL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION after
> >
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/9837687d93c907ec232b1c7635776aa0c7faa6bc
> > Now it is BUILDALL after
> >
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/63cf246fd4caa43c52a212054a98e9b450c54127
> >
> >
> > I don't know if BUILDALL should be listed or not. My gut feeling says
> > that it shouldn't be, but feel free to argue otherwise. I'm just the
> > messenger.
>
> Well, it *is* an auto-generated method that is installed in the
> namespace. Just like “bar”. So either we should show both, or
> neither. Or introduce a flag to include/exclude auto-generated
> methods. But then we would need to mark those methods as auto-
> generated somehow.

Re: [perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-13 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen via RT 
> On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:52, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) 
>  wrote:
> 
> # New Ticket Created by  Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev 
> # Please include the string:  [perl #132283]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. 
> # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132283 >
> 
> 
> Code:
> class Foo { has $.bar }; my $f = Foo.new(bar=>'u'); say $f.^methods;
> 
> ¦«2015.12»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«2016.06»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«2016.12»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«2017.06»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«f72be0f130cf»:
> (bar BUILDALL)
> 
> 
> 
> Bisectable points at two relevant commits:
> First it was BUILDALL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION after 
> https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/9837687d93c907ec232b1c7635776aa0c7faa6bc
> Now it is BUILDALL after 
> https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/63cf246fd4caa43c52a212054a98e9b450c54127
> 
> 
> I don't know if BUILDALL should be listed or not. My gut feeling says that it 
> shouldn't be, but feel free to argue otherwise. I'm just the messenger.

Well, it *is* an auto-generated method that is installed in the namespace.  
Just like “bar”. So either we should show both, or neither.  Or introduce a 
flag to include/exclude auto-generated methods.  But then we would need to mark 
those methods as auto-generated somehow.

Re: [perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-13 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen 
> On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:52, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) 
>  wrote:
> 
> # New Ticket Created by  Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev 
> # Please include the string:  [perl #132283]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. 
> # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132283 >
> 
> 
> Code:
> class Foo { has $.bar }; my $f = Foo.new(bar=>'u'); say $f.^methods;
> 
> ¦«2015.12»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«2016.06»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«2016.12»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«2017.06»:
> (bar)
> 
> ¦«f72be0f130cf»:
> (bar BUILDALL)
> 
> 
> 
> Bisectable points at two relevant commits:
> First it was BUILDALL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION after 
> https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/9837687d93c907ec232b1c7635776aa0c7faa6bc
> Now it is BUILDALL after 
> https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/63cf246fd4caa43c52a212054a98e9b450c54127
> 
> 
> I don't know if BUILDALL should be listed or not. My gut feeling says that it 
> shouldn't be, but feel free to argue otherwise. I'm just the messenger.

Well, it *is* an auto-generated method that is installed in the namespace.  
Just like “bar”. So either we should show both, or neither.  Or introduce a 
flag to include/exclude auto-generated methods.  But then we would need to mark 
those methods as auto-generated somehow.

[perl #132283] [REGRESSION] BUILDALL is listed as one of the methods, maybe that's not right (say $foo.^methods)

2017-10-12 Thread via RT 
# New Ticket Created by  Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev 
# Please include the string:  [perl #132283]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. 
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132283 >


Code:
class Foo { has $.bar }; my $f = Foo.new(bar=>'u'); say $f.^methods;

¦«2015.12»:
(bar)

¦«2016.06»:
(bar)

¦«2016.12»:
(bar)

¦«2017.06»:
(bar)

¦«f72be0f130cf»:
(bar BUILDALL)



Bisectable points at two relevant commits:
First it was BUILDALL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION after 
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/9837687d93c907ec232b1c7635776aa0c7faa6bc
Now it is BUILDALL after 
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/63cf246fd4caa43c52a212054a98e9b450c54127


I don't know if BUILDALL should be listed or not. My gut feeling says that it 
shouldn't be, but feel free to argue otherwise. I'm just the messenger.