* On Thu, Feb 12 2009, chromatic wrote:
> It's trivial to write a type-safe Haskell program which does not violates
> mathematical laws tought to fifth graders and which never terminates. I can
> do it in fewer than ten lines of code.
Wait, you need ten lines for this? I would just say "print [1
* On Thu, Feb 12 2009, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 February 2009 14:09:41 Michael G Schwern wrote:
>>
>>> I hope somebody writes a provable kernel.
>>
>> Why? It would be practically useless unless they proved all cases of input
>> (user and hardware), in which ca
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:09:41PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> For day-to-day (or even
> week-to-week) work, testing isn't going anywhere.
It's too late for me to be writing anything at all really, but here's just a
couple of thoughts on
On Thursday 12 February 2009 16:19:55 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > Why? It would be practically useless unless they proved all cases of
> > input (user and hardware), in which case it would only be practically
> > useless for every case which lacks complete proofs.
> I'm no e
chromatic wrote:
> On Thursday 12 February 2009 14:09:41 Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>> I hope somebody writes a provable kernel.
>
> Why? It would be practically useless unless they proved all cases of input
> (user and hardware), in which case it would only be practically useless for
> every
Michael G Schwern writes:
> Which brings us back to Haskell. What if you wrote an operating
> system and compiler, from the bottom up, in a functional programming
> language?
Does not neccessarily need to be FP. See, for example, vFiasco
http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/vfiasco/ for a C++ microkernel
On Thursday 12 February 2009 14:09:41 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I hope somebody writes a provable kernel.
Why? It would be practically useless unless they proved all cases of input
(user and hardware), in which case it would only be practically useless for
every case which lacks complete proo
Gabor Szabo wrote:
> Following a blog entry of David A. Wheeler I arrived to the
> web page of Open Proofs: http://www.openproofs.org/ he created.
>
> In short, as I did not understand much, there are tools to mathematically
> prove that a certain program does something or does not do something.
>
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Thu, February 12, 2009 4:20 am, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>> the one in the docs looks like this:
>>
>> # $foo isn't empty
>> isnt( $foo, '', "Got some foo" );
>>
>> which feels such a weak test I don't think I'd write it.
>
> Somewhat longer version of the same th
On Thu, February 12, 2009 4:20 am, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> the one in the docs looks like this:
>
> # $foo isn't empty
> isnt( $foo, '', "Got some foo" );
>
> which feels such a weak test I don't think I'd write it.
Somewhat longer version of the same thing:
my $warn = '';
%SIG{__WARN__} = sub {
Following a blog entry of David A. Wheeler I arrived to the
web page of Open Proofs: http://www.openproofs.org/ he created.
In short, as I did not understand much, there are tools to mathematically
prove that a certain program does something or does not do something.
Unfortunately most of these t
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:20:13PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the obvious risk of being laughed at, I'd like to ask
> you guys for a good use-case of isnt() in Test::More.
>
> the one in the docs looks like this:
>
> # $foo isn't empty
> isnt( $foo, '', "Got some foo" );
>
>
Gabor Szabo writes:
> With the obvious risk of being laughed at, I'd like to ask
> you guys for a good use-case of isnt() in Test::More.
What's "good"? Anyway ...
I've used it testing that objects are clones and not copies:
# quick and dirty:
isnt( $clone, $original, 'Not a copy' );
# mo
Gabor Szabo schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> With the obvious risk of being laughed at, I'd like to ask
> you guys for a good use-case of isnt() in Test::More.
You can search some code for uses of "isnt()":
http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=isnt\(+lang%3Aperl&hl=de&btnG=Code+suchen
- Renee
Hi,
With the obvious risk of being laughed at, I'd like to ask
you guys for a good use-case of isnt() in Test::More.
the one in the docs looks like this:
# $foo isn't empty
isnt( $foo, '', "Got some foo" );
which feels such a weak test I don't think I'd write it.
You?
Gabor
Jonathan Rockway writes:
> * On Wed, Feb 11 2009, Steffen Schwigon wrote:
>
>> "TAP::DOM" is a nice idea. Thank you, too. But although DOM isn't
>> strictly associated to XML, most people would probably have this
>> connotation in mind
>
> I don't think so. Everyone calls documents-parsed-into-tr
16 matches
Mail list logo
