On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Matija Papec writes:
Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
days ($hash{MYKEY})?
Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions that I
was against for the longest time,
David Storrs writes:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Matija Papec writes:
Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
days ($hash{MYKEY})?
Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions that I
was
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . . .
Of the qualities you listed for Pumpking:
Look, I already told you! I deal with the goddamn customers so the
engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing
with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell is
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:55:34PM +1000, Andrew Savige wrote:
Suppose I fix a bug with a unique bug ID in a bug tracking system.
I start by dutifully adding 15 new asserts, say, to an existing unit
test program, to duplicate the bug before I fix it. What if I later
want some way to map the
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:16:51AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 06:58, Francisco Olarte Sanz wrote:
I've been looking at the documentation for the test modules (Test::More,
Test::Simple, Test::Builder ), and I've found nothing regarding the return
value of the ok(),
Well, it's wednesday, so this must be... the day my laptop goes in for
repair. *Again*, dammit. (For those of you keeping track at home, this is
the fourth time in a month)
Standard rules apply--I've got limited e-mail access, and no non-work
computer access to speak of. (Plus I may well leave
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:18:37PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I started using Test::Inline, and I have two related comments. (I hope
this is the right place to bring them up.)
1. I don't think that pod2test should do anything more than the minimum
to construct a valid test script.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:42:22PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:18:37PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I started using Test::Inline, and I have two related comments. (I hope
this is the right place to bring them up.)
1. I don't think that pod2test should do
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:18:44PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
pod2test is poorly architected but I don't see anything it does that
I'd want in a module. What were you thinking of?
I was mostly thinking about the capturing of STDOUT and STDERR, but I'm
alsa suggesting it as a general
# New Ticket Created by Matt Kennedy
# Please include the string: [perl #30631]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30631
The attached env.patch patches classes/env.pmc to add vtable methods
elements()
# New Ticket Created by Matt Kennedy
# Please include the string: [perl #30630]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30630
This patch was done against parrot_2004-07-07_070001.
bigint.patch affects
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:46:12PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I think I threw that in before I realized one could just do:
=for testing
use Test::More 'no_plan';
This was all very early on in my mucking with the Test:: modules. In fact,
no_plan was implemented specificly so I could
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 17:07, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
Interesting. Aside: I'm glad to have it, as the whole plan business
was one of the turn-offs of the standard Test modules in the past. Is
the tedium of counting tests really worth it for anyone?
Tedium is the mother of invention.
Add
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different OO models
Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects
inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6.
Urgle. I've completely failed to explain myself so as to be
understood. That wasn't at
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Considering that:
:
: $obj.meth foo;
:
: No longer needs parentheses, and that argument processing is done on the
: callee rather than the caller side (well, most of the time), do I still
: have to predeclare Cfoo if I want to
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:34:16AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: This has no direct bearing on p6l, since performance is a p6i issue.
: But perhaps in the interests of performance as well as hackery we
: should explicitly
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:09:51PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: : On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:34:16AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: : This has no direct bearing on p6l, since performance is a p6i issue.
: : But perhaps in the
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: how 'bout
:
: @x = gather{
: loop{
: take time
: }
: } # can this be @x = gather { take time loop }
: push @x, later;
: say pop @x;# later
Can probably be made to work right.
: say pop @x;# heat death?
Yes.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:03:49PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
: Sure. The parser won't care what kind of characters
: make up the operator, as long as its defined by the
: time the operator is encountered. The operator
: rules in the grammar will probably be as simple as this:
:
: # where x is
- Original Message -
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 11:25 pm
Subject: Re: push with lazy lists
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan
Hursh wrote:
: how 'bout
:
: @x = gather{
: loop{
: take time
: }
: } # can this be
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:50:16PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 11:25 pm
Subject: Re: push with lazy lists
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan
Hursh wrote:
: how 'bout
:
: @x =
21 matches
Mail list logo
