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 discussion
Uri Guttman wrote:
SB == Scott Bronson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SB Has anybody inquired to the GMP project as to the possibility of
SB relaxing that restriction? If GMP truly is the best bignum
SB implementation, I definitely think it's worth asking.
Not AFAIK. Please try.
i still have my
Dan Sugalski wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Ion Alexandru Morega wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I checked in more of PDD 17, detailing parrot's base types. Some of
those types definitely don't exist (like, say, the string and bignum
type...) and could definitely use implementing. Should be fairly
Dan Sugalski wrote:
it's not exactly exciting watching two people hit return three times
in front of a roomful of people.
Although watching two people hit each other in the face with custard
pies three times in front of a roomful of people may be a lot more fun.
Progamming language
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
rename -v = 1, $orig, $new;
[snip]
I think just using named arguments would be better and much easier.
sub rename ($old, $new, +$verbose) {
say Renaming '$old' to '$new' if $verbose;
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
It's
This is yet another proposal that is probably a few years late. I've had
some (admittedly limited) experience with S-Lang in the past: the language
has currently a syntax that resembles much that of C but was originally
designed to be strongly stack-based and still is behind the scenes, a
I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
to specify a (finite number of) argument(s) on the left of functions, thus
allowing
Ion Alexandru Morega wrote:
In the mean time i fixed some things that were wrong, added a few
functions and the tests. I found some weird things while doing this,
probably bugs. So here's the patch i promised.
Can you please rediff string.pmc - it is in the CVS already, but you did
provide the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michele Dondi wrote:
| I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
| since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
| function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
| to
LT == Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LT Uri Guttman wrote:
SB == Scott Bronson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SB Has anybody inquired to the GMP project as to the possibility
of
SB relaxing that restriction? If GMP truly is the best bignum
SB implementation, I definitely
# New Ticket Created by Ion Alexandru Morega
# Please include the string: [perl #30444]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30444
Here's the patch, all the tests should pass now. I'm working on some
I've just fallen into this trap, and I doubt I'll be the last one:
void Parrot_PMC_set_intval_intkey(Parrot_INTERP interp, Parrot_PMC pmc, Parrot_Int
value, Parrot_Int key) {
VTABLE_set_integer_keyed_int(interp, pmc, key, value);
}
Is there any reason why the vtable is key, value but the
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:14PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
However I wonder if an implicit stack could be provided for return()s into
void context. It is well known that currently split() in void context has
the bad habit of splitting into @_, which is the reason why doing that is
Every now and then I have this discussion with people at work that involve Perl's
ideas of boolean truth. I usually break it down like this:
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
Anything not in that list is considered TRUE in a boolean context. That means that
--- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
isolation than Test::More does (but you have to remember that what
Test::More thinks of as a test, xUnit thinks of as an assertion to be
used *in* a test).
After working with xUnit
Hi,
I've run into Can't call method add_statement on an undefined value
running Devel::Cover. Apologies if this was reported before, but the
list archive is not searchable. I am using perl 5.8.4 and Devel::Cover 0.46.
To reproduce the bug, run
/opt/perl/bin/perl -MDevel::Cover -MFooBar -e
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just went digging through the docs to make sure I knew what was going
on. __repr__ is the python-visible name for our get_string vtable method.
We don't need any support beyond tying names together in the namespaces,
so far as I can see.
Sure?
x=0.3
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:38 PM +0200 6/11/04, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
how about having complex numbers as another basic PMC?
At least QCL, http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~oemer/qcl.html, C99 and PDL,
http://pdl.perl.org/, have them as a basic type.
As well as Python.
For right
The other concern I've had with our style of xUnit testing is that we're testing
behavior, but not
the actual data. With Test::More, we tested against a copy of the live database
(when possible --
but this definitely caused some issues) and we sometimes caught data problems that
xUnit
On 24 Jun 2004, at 07:09, Piers Cawley wrote:
[snip]
The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
isolation than Test::More does (but you have to remember that what
Test::More thinks of as a test, xUnit thinks of as an assertion to be
used *in* a test).
To be fair to
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:34:44PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
: since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
: function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
: to specify a
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 08:04, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
... The really special case is '0', which
is false for arcane (but very sensible) reasons.
I don't agree that '0' being false is sensible. This, plus less than
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:59:03AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
: Hash: SHA1
:
: Michele Dondi wrote:
:
: | I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
: | since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
: |
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 10:44, Scott Bronson wrote:
I don't agree that '0' being false is sensible...
I don't mean to imply that I think it's senseless. Just that, to me, it
smells suspiciously like a hack. :)
- Scott
Scott Bronson skribis 2004-06-24 10:44 (-0700):
However, it seems that because Perl is finally getting a typing system,
this hack can be fixed in Perl itself! No programmer intervention
needed. Undef and '' can be false for strings, undef and 0 can be false
for integers, undef, 0, and 0.0
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:50:03AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: That one doesn't work. Named arguments have to come at the end of the
: parameter list (just before the data list, if there is one). This is
: a decision I'm gradually beginning to disagree with, because of:
:
: sub repeat
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Scott Bronson skribis 2004-06-24 10:44 (-0700):
: However, it seems that because Perl is finally getting a typing system,
: this hack can be fixed in Perl itself! No programmer intervention
: needed. Undef and '' can be false for
Scott Bronson writes:
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 08:04, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
... The really special case is '0', which is false for arcane (but
very sensible) reasons.
I don't agree that '0' being false is
Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 11:29 (-0700):
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
call the .boolean method, at least in the abstract. (The optimizer is
free to optimize the method call
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Ion Alexandru Morega wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I checked in more of PDD 17, detailing parrot's base types. Some of
those types definitely don't exist (like, say, the string and bignum
type...) and could definitely use
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:09:40AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
isolation than Test::More does
I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
- You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry this one sat so long. (Piers reminded me with the summary)
It worked then '
And not for the first time
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
Where xUnit wins for me are in the normal places where OO is useful
(abstraction, reuse, revealing intention, etc.).
Since you've thought about this, and obviously don't believe it's OO so
it's better, I'd be interested in seeing
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:44:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 11:29 (-0700):
: This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
: Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
: call the .boolean method, at least in the
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:59, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
Every time I hear about xUnit, I figure there must be something other
than setup and teardown in its favor. If that's all there is, I'm not
sold.
It's the best option for languages that enforce a nominally pure OO
style.
(During the tech
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:34, Smylers wrote:
Scott Bronson writes:
But you're fine with 0 being false? 0 and '0' are pretty much
interchangeable in Perl 5 -- wherever you can use one, you can use the
other and it gets coerced to it.
Let's back up... Strings and numbers are meant to be
Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 12:24 (-0700):
Well, the type/property name doesn't have to be boolean--it could
be truth, instead.
I understand that 'true' and 'false' can't be used.
However, truth is in the same category as definedness, and
$foo.definedness looks awful :)
Perhaps for
There are currently 19 bignum vtable slots, which take a BIGNUM* value
argument of some kind. These are IMHO useless. We don't have a Parrot
basic type like BIGNUM.
A BIGNUM (BigInteger, BigNumber) will just be a PMC, AFAIK.
So I think these entries should just get deleted.
leo
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
- You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
Those that need different things aren't testing the same thing and
should move to a different
Larry Wall wrote:
What do you mean by length?
For a string, it obviously either means number of bytes or number
of characters. Pick one, document it, and let people who want the
other semantic use a pragma.
I don't think it matters which one you pick as default, as long
as it's clearly
--- Tony Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big gain for me with Test::Class is inheritable tests. Subclasses
can ensure they still pass all their parent's tests, as well as all of
their own, without me having to copy all the tests, or set up a really
clumsy testing environment. And of course
Michele Dondi writes:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
rename -v = 1, $orig, $new;
[snip]
I think just using named arguments would be better and much easier.
sub rename ($old, $new, +$verbose) {
say Renaming '$old' to '$new' if $verbose;
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Brent 'Dax'
Michele Dondi writes:
This is yet another proposal that is probably a few years late. I've had
some (admittedly limited) experience with S-Lang in the past: the language
has currently a syntax that resembles much that of C but was originally
designed to be strongly stack-based and still is
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:19:25PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: What do you mean by length?
:
: For a string, it obviously either means number of bytes or number
: of characters. Pick one, document it, and let people who want the
: other semantic use a
Scott Bronson writes:
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:34, Smylers wrote:
But you're fine with 0 being false? 0 and '0' are pretty much
interchangeable in Perl 5 -- wherever you can use one, you can use
the other and it gets coerced to it.
Let's back up... Strings and numbers are meant to
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
call the .boolean method, at least in the abstract.
My reading of A12 leads me
--- Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to
be one.
Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All
conditionals
call the .boolean method, at
On 0, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, is the name boolean final? I would prefer true, perhaps
with a corresponding false.
I want an okay. Routines should be able to return okay to indicate
an ambivalent degree of success. okay would be defined as true | false,
so:
some_routine()
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-06-24 14:29 (-0700):
$foo as boolean
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to
be one. Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1.
If I understand the current design correctly, having both .boolean and
casting via as would mean
--- Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-06-24 14:29 (-0700):
$foo as boolean
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to
be one. Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1.
If I understand the current design correctly, having
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-06-24 15:54 (-0700):
I'd say yeah, it is. 0-but-true is pretty nice to have. (Finally the
system calls can return something other than -1.)
That we already have. 0 but true. (perldoc -f fcntl)
It's 1 but false that's really special :)
Juerd
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:10:09PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
- You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
Those that need different things
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:24:25PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
: I want an okay. Routines should be able to return okay to indicate
: an ambivalent degree of success. okay would be defined as true | false,
Some messages want to be simultaneously Warnocked and not Warnocked...
Larry
Come the glorious age of Perl6, will hash slices be enhanced to allow
things like the following?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'expected'} = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Specifically, having the slice be something other than the last element.
This likely dictates having {} be able access a list of of hashrefs, not
-Original Message-
From: Dave Whipp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: definitions of truth
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:17, Smylers wrote:
Because the above would've been insane: saying that Csif ($x) treats
$x as a string would be pretending that Cif always treats its
arguments as numbers, but something such as Cif ($x eq 'frog') doesn't
have any numbers in it.
Doesn't it?
perl -e
I seemed to have opened a can of worms, lol
But did anybody see the one that had something to do with my question
crawling around? (I've obviously missed a couple of messages. They're
probably hanging out down at the router in the cyberspace equivelent of
teenagers ogling girls on the street
Paul Hodges writes:
I seemed to have opened a can of worms, lol
But did anybody see the one that had something to do with my question
crawling around? (I've obviously missed a couple of messages. They're
probably hanging out down at the router in the cyberspace equivelent of
teenagers
On 24/06/2004, at 6:31 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
i still have my stillborn bignum (using bcd registers and efficient
algorithms) implementation if anyone wants to pick it up. i have some
working base code and the overall design.
The major problem is: we need bignum now^Wtomorrow^WRSN. The
Juerd wrote:
That we already have. 0 but true. (perldoc -f fcntl)
It's 1 but false that's really special :)
No, what's really special is the ability to return entirely
different things in string versus numeric context, like the
magic $! does in Perl5.
That, or interesting values of undef :-)
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hodges writes:
So, in P6:
if 0 { print 0\n; } # I assume this won't print.
if '0' { print '0'\n; } # I assume this won't print.
if ''{ print ''\n;} # I assume this won't print.
if undef { print undef\n; } # I
Scott Bronson wrote:
That's the plan? Happy day! I was not aware of that. Because I didn't
see anything about this in Perl 6 Essentials, I just figured that
Perl5's '0'==undef was being brought forward into Perl6. The horror!
Sorry for the bad assumption. :)
Perhaps not as happy as you
62 matches
Mail list logo
