On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 16:10:28 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It's an interesting idea, but at the end of the article is the Fine Print
> about how assert {2.0} doesn't quite work:
Actually, by rewriting the expressions like I suggested, we can work
around that too:
my $foo = "";
Adrian Howard wrote:
which isn't _too_ shabby, but doesn't help much with things like:
ok_if { Foo->new->answer == 42 };
or
ok_if { $Some_dynamic_var == 42 };
So I don't really think it's worth pursuing.
Well, if we follow the logic of the assert2 author, you're just being SLOPPY
u
On 13 Feb 2008, at 00:10, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
Data::Dump::Streamer can decompile a code reference, complete with
attached lexicals. But as has been pointed out by Yuval, the real
trick is to show the value of all variables used in the block.
[snip]
Yeah... hadn't considered glo
chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 10:55:21 chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 10:06:14 Eric Wilhelm wrote:
How will you print the assertion code without a source filter?
"Show Source on Exception" is fairly easy:
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/10/adding_show_
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 10:55:21 chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 10:06:14 Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> > How will you print the assertion code without a source filter?
>
> "Show Source on Exception" is fairly easy:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/10/adding_show_source_to
It's not really the just the source he's showing though, it's the
source of the subexpressions leading to the failure of the last
expression.
Working on the string level is even more confusing in this case,
it's beyond just parsing perl without losing sanity, you must also
reconstruct it.
I have
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 10:06:14 Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> How will you print the assertion code without a source filter?
"Show Source on Exception" is fairly easy:
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/10/adding_show_source_to_perl_exc.html
Making that work with anonymous functions is tri
# from Adrian Howard
# on Tuesday 12 February 2008 03:38:
>Been considering doing something like for T::E (by de-compiling the
>coderef passed). Could be made more generic I guess.
How will you print the assertion code without a source filter?
--Eric
--
"...the bourgeoisie were hated from bot
On 12 Feb 2008, at 04:52, Andy Lester wrote:
Some interesting ideas for how the Ruby folks are now doing their
unit testing.
http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2008/02/assert2.html
By "the Ruby Folks" you mean "Phlip" I think - not seen a mad
adoption of it yet :-)
Been considering do
Some interesting ideas for how the Ruby folks are now doing their unit
testing.
http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2008/02/assert2.html
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
10 matches
Mail list logo
