This fixes a typo and enables X>>+< X
| X
-| X
+| X
]
= $; }>
On 2009 Jan 21, at 7:35, Carl Mäsak wrote:
Moritz (>):
So Larry and Patrick developed the idea of creating an
adverb on the test operator instead:
$x == 1e5 :ok('the :ok makes this is a test');
I'm trying to explain to myself why I don't like this idea at all. I'm
only partially successfu
Author: coke
Date: Fri Jan 23 22:05:05 2009
New Revision: 35945
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd17_pmc.pod
Changes in other areas also in this revision:
Removed:
trunk/src/pmc/pair.pmc
trunk/t/pmc/pair.t
Modified:
trunk/MANIFEST
trunk/PBC_COMPAT
trunk/t/steps/auto_pmc-01.t
Log:
TT
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> A spec-test is (or should be) different from an ad-hoc test. I want to be
> able to say "test S09.237 passes on pugs but not on Rakudo" (perhaps with a
> nicer name). Unique identifiers allow comparisons of specific tests across
> multiple imp
jerry gay wrote:
i don't understand the drive to have unique test identifiers. we don't
have unique identifiers for every code statement, or every bit of
documentation. why are tests so important/special/different that each
warrants a unique id? that aside, this functionality sounds like it
can
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37, Dave Whipp wrote:
> I could also imagine writing code that reads from an Sqlite database, and
> imposes that info onto the test. Whatever mechanism is used, I think we need
> a language-defined mechanism to supply a stable unique identifier for each
> test, so that i
Larry Wall wrote:
module MyTests {
sub group1 {
ok foo :name; ## Q - would a label be better?
}
}
>> ## Elsewhere
>> MyTests.group1.test_foo is also broken;
I guess I don't see offhand what you're trying to do with that.
...
We must keep a clean
separation between code t
Dave Whipp wrote:
I actually agree that your explicit definition (a simple/efficient
implementation in terms of other operators) is better for prelude than
my "declarative" form (which isn't really declarative, because Perl6
isn't a declarative language). My only disagreement was with your
ear
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:16:21AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> I can see that. So the alternative is to give things names and/or tags,
> so that we can attach parameters remotely.
Hmm, well, we also decided not to use any solutions that encourage
putting the metadata too far away from the place i
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:01:14AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
For example, I could conceive of a trait:
ok foo, :broken
which might downgrade the error to a warning on rakudo, but not on other
implementations.
On the surface that seems like a good idea, and pugs started o
Christoph Otto wrote:
So you're saying that multiple inheritance in its current state should
be allowed to continue, and that there's only a problem with ATTRs if a
PMC tries to extend two PMCs, both of which have their own ATTRs?
I'm saying that multiple inheritance between two C-level PMCs
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:01:14AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> For example, I could conceive of a trait:
>
> ok foo, :broken
>
> which might downgrade the error to a warning on rakudo, but not on other
> implementations.
On the surface that seems like a good idea, and pugs started out doing
thi
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
method foo() does assume { ... }
method bar() does ensure { ... }
Is "ensure" equivalent to the "assert" that you describe above?
Yes. "does ensure" was meant to be an englishification of
"postcondition"; and "does assume" is "precondition".
From the perspec
fREW (>), Moritz (>>), fREW (>>>):
>> > And should I
>> > just mail patches to rakudo...@perl.org?
>>
>> In general if you find a bug: yes.
>> In this case not, because it's a known limitation.
>
> Where do I mail the patches for the tests?
The Pugs repository (containing the Perl 6 test suite) h
> > And should I
> > just mail patches to rakudo...@perl.org?
>
> In general if you find a bug: yes.
> In this case not, because it's a known limitation.
Where do I mail the patches for the tests?
--
-fREW
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 02:18:46PM -0800, jn...@jnthn.net via RT wrote:
> On Wed Dec 31 08:44:02 2008, masak wrote:
> > Rakudo r34703:
> >
> > $ perl6 -e 'my $year; $year //= 2009'
> > get_iter() not implemented in class 'Integer'
> >
> > This looks like a misparse, interpreting '//= 2009' as '//
- Original Message
> From: isop
> To: parrotbug-follo...@parrotcode.org
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:27:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [perl #62506] Rakudo segfault on missing method
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Moritz Lenz via RT
> > To: is...@yahoo.com
> > Sent: Tu
- Original Message
> From: Moritz Lenz via RT
> To: is...@yahoo.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:06:03 AM
> Subject: [perl #62506] Rakudo segfault on missing method
>
> On Mon Jan 19 13:04:17 2009, isop wrote:
> > Following perl6 code segfaults with r31857:
> >
> > say 8.bla;
Darren Duncan wrote:
I don't quite follow you. Are you saying your version of sqrt is an
implicit declaration; maybe I don't understand how that differs from an
explicit definition in this case? In any event, right at this moment I
can't think of an answer to your question. Go ahead with wh
This patch provides trim_start() and trim_end() per earlier discussions.
trim() is rewritten in terms of those. There were some discussions about how
other data structures should be handled, so until there's a spec or a much
clearer agreement on the lists, I'm leaving that off.
Tests for this
20 matches
Mail list logo
