> From: Randy W. Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:12 AM
[...]
> What about getting it added at gmane.org also?
Seems like a great idea. (Just learned about it, thanks to your post.)
Would you be willing to follow up?
I presume you already know about nntp.perl.org
At 11:51 AM +1200 6/1/06, Sam Vilain wrote:
I think the answer lies in the "checkpointing" references in that
document. I don't know whether that's akin to a SQL savepoint (ie, a
point mid-transaction that can be rolled back to, without committing the
entire transaction) or more like a continuat
--- John Drago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Mastros wrote:
> > I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple
> > things are happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming,
> > which is exactly the opposite of what should be implied.
> > "Serialized" would be a nice n
Daniel Hulme wrote:
>>How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
>>implicitly hypotheticalized?
>>
>>
>I assume that the atomicness being controlled by some kind of lock on
>entry, it also applies to I/O and other side-effecty things that you
>can't undo.
>
The lock o
Jonathan Lang wrote:
>How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
>implicitly hypotheticalized? I'm thinking that a "retry" exit
>statement may be redundant; instead, why not just go with the existing
>mechanisms for successful vs. failed block termination, with the minor
James Mastros wrote:
> I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple things are
> happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming, which is exactly the
> opposite of what should be implied. "Serialized" would be a nice name,
> except it implies serializing to a serial form
Thanks to all who have read or replied -
I'm reading the Concurrency POD right now - more questions when I'm done.
John Drago | VP Software Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.precissystems.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Smith [mailto:[E
If LWP isn't on the list I give it a vote.
--michael
- Original Message
> From: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Too many people have said "it'll be over by christmas" for me to have
> any confidence in such prognostications, but ...
I can't say I blame you. I'm just going by my gut, what I've seen before and
what some birds have su
> How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
> implicitly hypotheticalized?
I assume that the atomicness being controlled by some kind of lock on
entry, it also applies to I/O and other side-effecty things that you
can't undo.
--
Hats are no worse for being made by ancien
How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
implicitly hypotheticalized? I'm thinking that a "retry" exit
statement may be redundant; instead, why not just go with the existing
mechanisms for successful vs. failed block termination, with the minor
modification that when an
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #39254]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39254 >
The recently added support (yay!) for subs with unicode names doesn't
work with :multi
Pete Krawczyk wrote:
> Subject: skip_all with Test::More?
> From: Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:53:46 +0200
>
> }
> }use Test::More;
> }
> }plan tests => 123;
> }
> }skip_all( 'reason' ) if ...;
> }
> }# tes
Subject: skip_all with Test::More?
From: Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:53:46 +0200
}
}use Test::More;
}
}plan tests => 123;
}
}skip_all( 'reason' ) if ...;
}
}# tests here
}
Moin,
I stumbled over a slight problem with Test::More: skip_all is an import
feature, but not a subroutine. So you can do either:
use Test::More;
my $tests;
BEGIN { $tests = 2; plan tests => $tests; }
SKIP: {
skip ( 'reason
Cool, it's manageable for now and our current testing -- using sometimes
large, monolithic Test::More .t files -- is no more flexible so there's no
loss in the move, but the flexibility will be appreciated when you get
around to it. Thanks for putting Test::Class together Adrian!
Andrew
On 5/31/0
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:41:06PM -0600, John Drago wrote:
> class Foo is synchronized {
> ...
> }
>
> our method Bar is synchronized {
> ...
> }
>
> class Baz {
> has $.Bux is synchronized;
> }
To everyone participating in this thread:
There has already been a draft spec for concurrency
Yeah, but it's so convenient to have my test classes reflect the classes of
my application. It makes it so easy to see what's going on when I name my
test methods the same thing as the methods in my application.
Andrew
On 5/31/06 10:47 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
[apologies to andrew for a dupe - didn't notice it went to perl-qa]
On 31 May 2006, at 14:35, Andrew Gianni wrote:
Let me start by admitting that I don't know a whole lot about xUnit
testing.
In fact, using Test::Class is really my first exposure to the idea, so
perhaps I'm asking for somethi
How about one of these?
==
class Baz {
has $.a is restricted;
has $.b is controlled;
has $.c is unique;
has $.d is shared;
has $.e is queued;
has $.f is token;
...
}
--- John Drago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I asked this via the Google Groups interfa
Hi Andrew,
* Andrew Gianni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-31 15:40]:
> Is there an easy way to just run that one test method (as well
> as the startup, setup, teardown and shutdown methods) while I'm
> working on it rather than running the whole batch?
just write a base test class with all your sca
We could always go with the Windows API "Critical Section" name. Locked is
probably as good a descriptor, and avoids anything associated with Windows.
Sage
James Mastros skribis 2006-05-31 12:03 (+0100):
> I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple things
are
> happening at
Let me start by admitting that I don't know a whole lot about xUnit testing.
In fact, using Test::Class is really my first exposure to the idea, so
perhaps I'm asking for something that doesn't make sense; please bear with
me in case I am.
Test::Class seems like a great idea for so many reasons, b
Thanks, I'm going to give D::D::S a try, as I think it'll do what I'm
looking for. Since I'm testing a subroutine that returns a data-structure
(that happens to contain code-refs), I really don't care about the return
values of the code-refs because those are tested elsewhere (through testing
the c
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:50:35PM +0200, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> In that case only the compiler and the most basic I/O functionality
> needs to be in and i agree that it's not a bad idea.
>
> There should be easy-to-install bundles of modules though -
> connectivity bundle, DB bundle, webserver
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:20:16AM -0700, brad clawsie wrote:
> linux distributions do not have full degrees of freedom with regards to
> their base packaging - there is the implicit limiting factor of the 700
> MB ISO file size for standard CDs. to overshoot this would limit
> adoption mostly to
James Mastros skribis 2006-05-31 12:03 (+0100):
> I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple things are
> happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming, which is exactly the
> opposite of what should be implied. "Serialized" would be a nice name,
> except it implies se
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:41:06PM -0600, John Drago wrote:
> I asked this via the Google Groups interface a few weeks ago, but I'm not
> sure if it made it here.
> I am asking again in case the question never made it onto the list.
>
> Has the syntax for synchronized/threaded @things been worked
I asked this via the Google Groups interface a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure
if it made it here.
I am asking again in case the question never made it onto the list.
Has the syntax for synchronized/threaded @things been worked out?
For example:
class Foo is synchronized {
...
}
our method Ba
I expect/hope there'll be repositories from which *.pbc libraries can be
installed (a bit like PPM), removing the necessity of external build
tools for plain vanilla users. Also, maybe "perl6 for power users" live
CD's by ActiveState et al.
brad clawsie wrote:
linux distributions do not have
On 5/30/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 12:08, Nicholas Perez wrote:
> Why not compare signatures? Is that not feasible?
Which signatures? Is it important that the code comes from the same place
(check the CV properties) or that the code has bound to the same le
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:14:05PM -0700, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
From: Google Help [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:31 AM
[...]
Thank you for your note. We've forwarded your request to our
newsgroups
administrator for review. Please be awa
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:14:05PM -0700, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
>
> > From: Google Help [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:31 AM
> [...]
> > Thank you for your note. We've forwarded your request to our
> > newsgroups
> > administrator for review. Please be aware that we
33 matches
Mail list logo
