Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> > P.S. Why is this perl-qa? Shouldn't it be perl6-qa?
>
> I believe Schwern has already answered that ...
I think we have here our first FAQ :-).
- Barrie
> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:01:22PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> If you do this for new code or changed documentation adding
>> a =for result would add more test cases.
MGS> Sorry, I don't follow.
How do you know that sample co
I do not believe that it would be a good idea to mix perl5 and perl6 on
any of the lists. If something is useful to perl5 send it on to p5p.
Anything else just confuses the issues.
If you'd like a set of throw-away tests. That will be replaced with
the formal spec. (Which may of course be the re
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 05:48:11PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I haven't seen any responses to my responses to the RFC. Is this list working?
I'll look for your responses and respond if I have anything to say.
:-)
> P.S. Why is this perl-qa? Shouldn't it be perl6-qa?
I believe Schwern has alr
I haven't seen any responses to my responses to the RFC. Is this list working?
Or is it my software?
P.S. Why is this perl-qa? Shouldn't it be perl6-qa?
--
Chaim FrenkelNonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Below is the message that inspired this.
How about adding an C<=also> POD tag? It would have three syntaxes:
=also for ...
=also begin
=also end
These would be much like the existing three tags but "normal" POD
converters would completely ignore them. Then we could have:
8<
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Using the =for POD tag we can do this.
>
> =pod
>
> Here is a nice example of how to add one and one in Perl.
>
> =for example
>
> print 2 + 2;
>
> The existing POD utilities would have to be modified to consider "=for
> example" as Perl code whic
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> In One Sentence
> ---
>
> Regression tests should be embedded in the code and documentation near what
> it is they're testing.
s/embedded/embeddable/ and I'm there. I don't think you can necessarily
embed tests right near the code you want to test, and
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 04:51:18PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> In One Sentence
> ---
>
> All patches to perl must have an associated testing patch.
I appreciate the direction you're looking, but I do not support your
One Sentence. Many patches are patches to Configure, the
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:21:07AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so,
> I don't need to be on both lists.
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern writes:
> :In One Sentence
> :---
> :
> :All patches to perl must have an ass
On Jul 26, 4:55pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Use JAPHs to test Perl.
I see to recall someone (Tim, I think) suggesting CPAN for testing
the Perl5 -> Perl6 translator. We take the CPAN modules, convert them
to Perl6 and then run all their regression tests.
A
--
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:37:30AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail.
>
> I seem to recall that Ilya put in a way to add tests that are known to
> fail, and whose failures are ignored in normal installation mode, but
> I forget
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:43:36AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> :This issue is big enough to warrent a seperate discussion/RFC.
>
> Agreed. When that comes, I'll argue that it is perfectly acceptable
> to release a "stable (maintenance) Perl" with known test failures.
That was actually a subtle hint tha
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:38:09AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Stevens writes:
> :Something I've been pondering for a while:
> :Script that generates 1024 byte sequences of code repeatedly, and
> :runs them.
> :If you ever get a core-dump or internal error, you check what
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern writes:
:> It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail.
:> While I can understand the desire to avoid distressing end users
:> with fully anticipated test failures, I think we need a better
:> solution to this - when a problem is ide
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Stevens writes:
:Something I've been pondering for a while:
:
:Script that generates 1024 byte sequences of code repeatedly, and
:runs them.
:
:If you ever get a core-dump or internal error, you check what the last few
:sequences were. You've probably just found a b
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:21:07AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so,
> I don't need to be on both lists.
No. I'm posting the initial few RFCs on bootstrap to get people's
attention. All discussion should go to perl-qa only. Sorry if I
di
Something I've been pondering for a while:
Script that generates 1024 byte sequences of code repeatedly, and
runs them.
If you ever get a core-dump or internal error, you check what the last few
sequences were. You've probably just found a bug.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:49:29PM -0400, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > In One Sentence
> > ---
> >
> > All code examples in the Perl docs can be at a minimum tested for syntax
> > errors in an automated fashion.
>
> Damn you! You stole my thunder for the n
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> In One Sentence
> ---
>
> All code examples in the Perl docs can be at a minimum tested for syntax
> errors in an automated fashion.
>
Damn you! You stole my thunder for the next YAPC! :( I've got a book
that should be going into production RSN and t
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:01:22PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> If you do this for new code or changed documentation adding
> a =for result would add more test cases.
Sorry, I don't follow.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Con
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:58:05PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> Until the language and its edge cases are locked down, any JAPH you collect
> now may be invalidated.
Yep, we'll have to wait for perl6 JAPHs to start appearing to test
perl6. However, they'll be useful for testing the perl6->perl
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:51:18PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I'd like to reject the philosophy. I'd prefer that the language define
> perl. I.e. not an implementation. Rather the spec.
>
> Shouldn't the tests be designed from the spec?
Spec? What spec? Perl has a spec?
At the moment, Pe
23 matches
Mail list logo
