Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Consider the following:
use Test::More tests = 1;
is(get_data_count([1..39]), 39,
should be 39 items);
sub
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
4 X 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it violates associativity.
If one wants to violate associativity, one should presumably *not*
use the chained comparison notation!
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by
Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Would IO::Capture be of help here?
--
David Cantrell
David Cantrell wrote:
Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Would IO::Capture be of help here?
Looks promising. Hope to find time today to try it out and report
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:46:51PM -0800, Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Any number of existing modules can be used which capture the output of
a
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:58:15AM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
It seems to me that that would just hide other problems. This function is
for comparing 2 arrays and if neither of them things passed in are actually
arrays then it's quite right to issue a warning.
Test::More is designed to handle
Miroslav Silovic writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
I think this is correct, however... this is
Luke Palmer writes:
Miroslav Silovic writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
I think this is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
The reason that junctions behave this way is because they don't
collapse. You'll note the same semantics don't arise in
Quantum::Entanglement
All~
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:51:24 +0100, Miroslav Silovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
The reason that junctions behave this way is
On 7 Feb 2005, at 21:13, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:03:29PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
Test::Unit, as mentioned by Curtis, has been abandoned.
Has it? I thought that the folk on [EMAIL PROTECTED] had taken
it on ?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PerlUnit/ shows some
On 2005.02.05.20.33, Autrijus Tang wrote:
| (I've just finished the pretty printing part in Pugs, so I'll use actual
| command line transcripts below. The leading ? does not denote boolean
| context -- it's just telling pugs to do a big-step evaluation. Also,
| boolean literals are written in
Brock~
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
mathematically sound. Sorry.
--Brock
- Forwarded message from Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
(a b c) == (a b) and (b c)
Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
mathematically sound. Sorry.
--Brock
- Forwarded message from Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:06:58 -0700
From: Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: perl6-language@perl.org
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8
All~
Welcome to yet another summary in which I will undoubtedly confuse to
homophones. Probably more than a few this week as I am a little tired.
But perhaps the alien on my window or the vampire on my monitor will
help
Hey. In Pugs 6.0.2 (cf. http://use.perl.org/~autrijus/journal/23093 )
I'm beginning to flesh out a signature list for primitives. It's
currently, well, quite primitive but already works with the multimethod
dispatched and the context propagator, so I'd like to call for review:
QA'ers,
Once again I am trying to get a handle on how to track down failures
caught only under D::C or the debugger.
I've written coverage tests for Ima::DBI,as part of the Phalanx/Kwalitee
effort for Class::DBI. And its works fine except under the GUI debugger
or D::C
For plain make test
17 matches
Mail list logo
