On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
But (I thought) the idea was that every test needs the same setup. If
they're all in one method, they won't get that.
How's that?
Also, if you add lots of tests in a single method, (again as I understand)
they will stop
Ion Alexandru Morega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the patch, all the tests should pass now.
Yep.
Thanks, applied.
... then i'll rewrite perlstring.pmc and possibly the other
perlscalar subclasses (derive them from Float, Integer, etc) if that's
needed.
I think, we should have
scalar
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
André pang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/06/2004, at 6:31 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The major problem is: we need bignum now^Wtomorrow^WRSN. The Pie-thon
benchmarks does use long (integer?) arithmetics: +, - *, //, % AFAIK.
Is there a big problem with using GMP for the purposes of the
Jonadab the Unsightly One skribis 2004-06-24 22:11 (-0400):
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 too already works in Perl 5. See dualvar in Scalar::Util.
Perl 6 is very neat, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Larry Wall wrote:
| Same in Perl 6. For instance, to call the binary addition operator
| C $a + $b by its true name, you'd say C infix:+($a,$b) .
| When you define an operator, you always use the true name form.
I immediately start to feel very
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:43:30PM -0700, Scott Bronson wrote:
So, in summary, though 0==false appears to work, it leads to a number
of strange boundary conditions and, therefore, bugs. It's hard for new
programmers to grasp and even old hacks are still sometimes tripped up
by it. It just
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Ion Alexandru Morega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... then i'll rewrite perlstring.pmc and possibly the other
perlscalar subclasses (derive them from Float, Integer, etc) if that's
needed.
I think, we should have
scalar
Integer
Boolean
PerlInt
Float
PerlNum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Hodges wrote:
| --- 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;}
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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) {
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:23:39PM -0700, Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So a null byte is still Boolean true.
Ugh, yarf, ack, etc.
But as long as I know -- easy enough to check explicitly.
But just tell me thisam I the only guy who thinks this *feels*
Paul Hodges wrote:
So a null byte is still Boolean true.
Ugh, yarf, ack, etc.
But as long as I know -- easy enough to check explicitly.
But just tell me thisam I the only guy who thinks this *feels*
wierd?
It doesn't feel weird to me, but my previous languages of choice
were fairly high-level
Hello,
I have a wish for Perl6. I think it would be nice to have the possibility
for more than one modifier after a simple statement.
For example:
print $a+$b if $a if $b for 1..3;
Gerd Pokorra
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please configure your email client correctly.
(I'm surprised that the message was accepted, even)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2004-06-25 13:38 (-):
I have a wish for Perl6. I think it would be nice to have the possibility
for more than one modifier after a simple statement.
Has been
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:38:51PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a wish for Perl6. I think it would be nice to have the possibility
for more than one modifier after a simple statement.
For example:
print $a+$b if $a if $b for 1..3;
Gerd Pokorra
Stéphane Payrard skribis 2004-06-25 16:15 (-0400):
It is unpossible to stack loop modifiers without adding
conventions denoting the iterators.
Is it really? I've always thought this would be useful enough:
say .{foo} for @$_ for @foo;
Although that can probably just be written as:
On 24 Jun 2004, at 20:19, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
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
hi paul :)
I recently discovered an issue with nested subroutines while using
Devel::Cover with Parse::Yapp. the basic issue is that some subroutines are
not discovered by Devel::Cover and thus no metrics are generated.
there are two files in the tarball. Foo.pm is a minimal test case showing
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:35:26AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
But (I thought) the idea was that every test needs the same setup. If
they're all in one method, they won't get that.
How's that?
I thought the isolation
On 24 Jun 2004, at 21:41, Ovid wrote:
[snip]
I also like the thought of inheriting tests, but I know not everyone
is fond of this idea. There
was a moderately interesting discussion about this on Perlmonks:
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=294571
[snip]
Yeah, I meant to contribute to
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I thought the isolation principle that people were talking about is
that before every test, a setup method is called, and after every test
a teardown is called, automatically by the test harness. This
seems to require one method
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Yep. I'd swap function names as well as argument order, so that
everything matches the vtable prototype.
void Parrot_PMC_set_intkey_intval(Parrot_INTERP interp, Parrot_PMC
pmc,
On Friday 25 June 2004 03:47, André Pang wrote:
It only seems fair to be using the same library as Python, if you want
a decent bignum speed comparison.
We don't mind being unfair, as long as parrot's winning :-)
Jerome
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:05:09PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004, at 20:19, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
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.).
On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:10, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
[snip]
I thought the isolation principle that people were talking about is
that before every test, a setup method is called, and after every
test
a teardown is called, automatically by the test harness. This
seems to require one method == one
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:41:15PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I was responding to your suggestion to put all the tests in one method
if they are just parametrized by data. How do you suggest writing the
equivalent of
--- Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I'm confused too. None of the Test::Unit examples I've seen use
is, they use some form of assert.
You were looking at Test::Class code, not Test::Unit code.
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is Evil
Ok, now that I understand what library you're using ...
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:41:15PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I was responding to your suggestion to put all the tests in one method
if they are just parametrized by data.
Paul Hodges wrote:
So a null byte is still Boolean true.
But just tell me thisam I the only guy who thinks this *feels*
wierd? Understanding the reason doesn't make it any more ~comfortable~.
I think you are. Perl considers null to be data--it's that simple.
Remember, while Perl can work
On 24 Jun 2004, at 21:10, 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 aren't testing the same
Juerd writes:
Stphane Payrard skribis 2004-06-25 16:15 (-0400):
It is unpossible to stack loop modifiers without adding
conventions denoting the iterators.
Is it really? I've always thought this would be useful enough:
say .{foo} for @$_ for @foo;
Although that can probably just
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Fergal Daly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* I never have to type repetitive tests like
isa_ok Foo-new(), 'Foo'
again because it's handled by a base class that all my test classes
inherit from.
Repetition is good. I feel very strongly that
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:18:49PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
Tests are all about quantity.
I always thought that tests were about malice:
I bet the programmer didn't think of this...
What happens if I just do this...
Mmm, I wonder if it covers this corner case?
Eat pathological data and die!
Has anyone encountered some really odd errors, namely status 500 errors when
surfing to ASP.Net files only through means of WWW::Mechanize?
Andrew Potozniak
Administrative Computing
Student Assistant
State
On 25 Jun 2004, at 20:18, Andy Lester wrote:
Repetition is good. I feel very strongly that you should be checking
your constructor results in every single test, and checked against
literals, not variables.
I'm not complaining about repetitive tests, and I agree with what you
said about testing
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:43:14PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Yep. I'd swap function names as well as argument order, so that
everything matches the vtable prototype.
void
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:35:38PM -0400, Potozniak, Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Has anyone encountered some really odd errors, namely status 500 errors when
surfing to ASP.Net files only through means of WWW::Mechanize?
What is the error that is showing up in the log file on your ASP.Net
On 24 Jun 2004, at 19:59, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
[snip]
- You don't have much control (correct me if I'm wrong) about the order
of tests, or the relationship between tests, eg you can't say if
this
test fails, skip these others. This is straightforward in
Test::More's simple procedural
On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:51, Fergal Daly wrote:
[snip]
NB: I haven't used xUnit style testing so I could be completely off
the mark
but some (not all) of these benefits seem to be available in T::M land.
Just so I'm clear - I'm /not/ saying any of this is impossible with
T::M and friends. That's
At some point in history, Paul Hodges wrote (in part):
ph So a null byte is still Boolean true. Ugh, yarf, ack, etc.
No. And it never has been (at least in my world view). However, asking
that question explains some things. See below for more.
ph But as long as I know -- easy enough to
--- Spider Boardman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At some point in history, Paul Hodges wrote (in part):
ph So a null byte is still Boolean true. Ugh, yarf, ack, etc.
No. And it never has been (at least in my world view).
A valid point, though I reply:
my $x = \0;
print true if $x;
41 matches
Mail list logo
