On 07/06/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7 Jun 2007, at 23:16, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
>
>> So: Interleaved for the first draft, at the end for maintenance.
>
> To me, this is the same as saying "I turn off warnings and strict
> when
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
>> > The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
>> > treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
>>
>> Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it de
Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:18:30AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
>> As for porting a Test::More style framework, I tried doing that with
>> Python and was actually doing well with it, but I was shot down pretty
>> quickly.
>
> Any specific reasons why (is the disc
"Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of you might be interested in this article on test-first development
> by Danny Faught, all the more relevant as he is working with Perl.
>
> http://tejasconsulting.com/articles/test-first.html
There's an article by some bloke about test driven
Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> There's been a new version of Test::Class coming 'real soon' for a few
> months now :-)
[...]
> I'm considering two changes.
> a) Test methods default to an arbitrary number of tests.
> b) Use undef rather than 'no_pl
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:43:24PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > What's left?
>>
>> What about begin blocks with side effects. How do you propose
>> detecting the side effects. How do you deal with
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there's Perl->C translation issue as to why that's not possible,
> ok. But I know from a B standpoint all the information is there to
> handle BEGIN blocks.
No, it isn't.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:38:36PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >> Deferring BEGIN blocks 'til runtime will break rather more realworld
>> >> program than it fixes I think.
>> >
>> > Wher
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:16:49PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:23:46AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >>
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:23:46AM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Um... You're wrong. If you do need 'startup time' initialization then
>> you should do it in an INIT block. If I may quote from the
>> doc
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:04:58PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
>> > $ bleadperl -MO=-qq,Deparse foo.plx
>> > sub BEGIN {
>> > print "foo\n";
>> > }
>> > print "bar\n";
>> >
>> > If B::Deparse can save BEGIN blocks, B::C can.
>>
>> I didn't mean
"Kurt D. Starsinic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 15, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>> Ok, so that's a bit off the topic of "why use isa_ok()" but I just don't
>> see why people seem to object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
>> tests. I can't see how it couldn't help improve the quality of
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 08:12:43AM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >> What's wrong with
>> >>
>> >> ok ( eval { $foo->isa('Foo') } );
>> >>
>> >> or even:
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:41:31PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > The equivalent code without isa_ok() would be:
>> >
>> > my $foo = Foo->new;
>> > ok( $foo->isa('Foo') );
>>
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 04:09:19AM +0200, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> I don't get all the different (well, only VMS and Cygwin, so far, but
>> I like to nip buds) MM_XXX test suites: won't they be testing pretty
>> much the same things?
>
> Yes, b
be programmatically generated.
Thinking about it, you could probably move the module loads into the
test scripts and have them just run the basic test, which would, in
turn, probably mean you could get away with just using Test::More/Simple
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> Is there a step-by-step guide how to create a module with
> high kwalitee?
Make sure you don't write a module that does anything really
interesting...
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
at make sense).
Reports from Devel::Cover.
More/better documentation -- someone's just posted a tutorial in Word
format to one of the xp sites.
More reference sites...
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you do XUnit/JUnit style testing in Perl?
>
> Point them at Pod::Tests with a mention of Test::Unit (unfortunately,
> not ready for prime-time).
Patches and warm bodies welcome.
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 06:13:24AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Hey, I was in that talk and I definitely wasn't yelling 'Sir, yes, sir!'
>
> You'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
ng the whole YAPC::Europe audience yelling "Sir, yes,
> sir!" during my talk. I'm raising a QA army.
Hey, I was in that talk and I definitely wasn't yelling 'Sir, yes, sir!'
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
, email,
> stick it in a database, whatever.
Test::Unit's has the idea of Listeners that are responsible for
interpreting the test data and reporting on it. Thus, when you're
running the tests under make test you use a Test::Harness compatible
TestRunner. It works quite well.
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 04:46:21PM +0200, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> > Why are you considering dynamic method calls an ill? I'm using them
> > frequently.
>
> I anticipated this. From the docs...
>
>Perl has alot of wierd features. We lo
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So here's some revelations I'd like to share with you when I put this
> problem to the Fun With Perl mailing list.
[Suggested solution]
> Ok, that's great. But then Piers Cawley cried out "HALTING PROBLEM!&q
"Christian Lemburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> I was poking around on CPAN and noticed this rather complete
> >> alternative to Pod::Tests for embedding tests in code, a bit closer to
> >> what Barrie was discussing.
> >>
> >> I've invited the author onto the li
barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:38:43PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> <...neat expansion on do_all_tests() concept snipped...>
>
> > Well, it's a thought anyway.
>
> Seems pretty cool, but I'm trying to perceive the ad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I was poking around on CPAN and noticed this rather complete
> alternative to Pod::Tests for embedding tests in code, a bit closer to
> what Barrie was discussing.
>
> I've invited the author onto the list and hopefully he'll say a few
> words. I'd also like people t
barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:05:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:38:22PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > > What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
> >
> > >
> > > This would make for very succinct ea
barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
>
>my $tname ; ## ok(), skip(), todo() can get the test name from here
>my $is_todo ; ## ok() could look at this and adjust it's output
>
>sub do_all_tests {
> plan test
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:59:52 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> >Consider:
> >
> >my Dog $spot = Cat->new;
> >print $spot->isa('Dog') ? 'Dog' : 'not dog';
> >
> >Currently, $spot is not a dog. It should probably remain that way.
>
> My gut feel
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 04:15:24PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > my Dog $spot;
> > print defined($spot) ? 'defined' : 'undefined'; # undefined
> > print $spot->isa('Dog')
Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >What I think might be more interesting or useful would be to have
> >another undef type. Call it uninit. THis would be only used for data
> >that hasn't been initialized. Then there would be two warnings one
> >for unitialized and one for using unde
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:23:16PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > You may want to think about psychology and wording, though. If
> > someone writes a code patch but does not supply tests/docs, and he or
> > she is told that the patch is reject
33 matches
Mail list logo
