At 3:38 PM -0600 11/15/02, Garrett Goebel wrote:
While I'm here... Will there be a distinction between lists and arrays as
their implemented in Parrot?
Yes.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
"Chromatic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> Where would you like to generate the test files? Would it be part of the
> standard 'make' target? Would it happen at the start of 'make test'?
Would we
> do it before checking the test files into source control?
My usual approach is to checkin the genera
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:59:56 +, Dave Whipp wrote:
> I was wondering when someone would bring that up (someone always
> does). Extensibility doesn't matter: the code generator's specific purpose
> is to generate tests of numeric literals. If that isn't what you want, use
> a different generator
> I don't think I've got the energy to debate basic SW development
philosophy:
> just do a google on "merciless refactoring" or "agile software
development"
> (or even "extreme programming").
I don't want to debate SW philosophy, because it is just that,
philosophy...everyone has his/her own. I c
"Tanton Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, we can either use one generic test script, and write the perl6
> ourselves...or
> we can create N specific test scripts which generate the perl6 for us
given
> a particular data set and after we have written the perl6 ourselves.
Sounds
> like duplicat
> If people are happy to use these data-oriented test-scripts, then I'm
> happy to examine various groups of tests and find their abstractions.
> It's just basic data-modeling, applied to source code. By modeling
> each file independently, I avoid the problems associated with
> infinitely flexible
I wrote:
>I think that it'd also be nice to get some consensus on which format of
> test we should maintain: the table version, or the raw-code version.
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> I think the consensus when Chromatic brought the subject
> up was to use the testing system that Parrot uses; however,
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 05:07 PM, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
TODO: Octal
0c0777511
0C0777511
-0c0777 -511
0c0_7_7_7 511
No capital C -- is it o or c?
It's officially 'o', as of today.
Alright, fixed.
MikeL
Joseph F. Ryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tanton Gibbs wrote:
Comments on the file:
TODO: Exponential
1.23e1 12.3
1.23E2 123
-1.23e3 -1230
-1.23E4 -12300
I think we should add some negative exponent tests
1.23e-1 .123 (* or is it 0.123?)
12.34e-1 1.234
1.23e-2 .0123 (* or is it 0.0123?)
-1.23e-3 -0.00123
-1.23e-4 -0.000123
> >I think that it'd also be nice to get some consensus on which format of
test
> >we should maintain: the table version, or the raw-code version.
> >
>
> I think the consensus when Chromatic brought the subject
> up was to use the testing system that Parrot uses; however,
> your table version is k
Dave Whipp wrote:
Tanton Gibbs wrote:
We also might want some way of specifying a test that will cause an
error...for example
0b19 ERROR
I'm not exactly sure how to specify this, but it is often important to
document what is not allowed along with what is allowed.
I definitely agree th
Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> We also might want some way of specifying a test that will cause an
> error...for example
> 0b19 ERROR
>
> I'm not exactly sure how to specify this, but it is often important to
> document what is not allowed along with what is allowed.
I definitely agree that we need some e
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 05:07 PM, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
TODO: Octal
0c0777511
0C0777511
-0c0777 -511
0c0_7_7_7 511
No capital C -- is it o or c?
It's officially 'o', as of today.
MikeL
Comments on the file:
> TODO: Exponential
>
> 1.23e1 12.3
> 1.23E2 123
> -1.23e3 -1230
> -1.23E4 -12300
I think we should add some negative exponent tests
1.23e-1 .123 (* or is it 0.123?)
12.34e-1 1.234
1.23e-2 .0123 (* or is it 0.0123?)
-1.23e-3 -0.00123
-1.23e-4 -0.000123
> TODO: Big Number
"David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m...
>
> Here's an updated numbers.t file: I'm not sure that everything is
> up-to-date; but I find it clearer. I fixed a few bugs, and merged in the
> radii tests.
>
The attachments on that previous post seemed to go wrong:
Joseph F. Ryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Well, thats not exactly true. I've been following along the
> discussion
> on P6-doc, and I've been updating the tests to match the
> current status.
>
> Although I'm not sure of their accuracy (My posts to p6-doc about them
> have been pretty
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 03:49 PM, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
I get a log of binary goo at the top of conversion.t
Does anyone else have this problem?
Yes, it's just a header line -- you can ignore/delete it. The real
stuff starts at "#!perl".
MikeL
I get a log of binary goo at the top of conversion.t
Does anyone else have this problem?
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tanton Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20,
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 03:00 PM, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
Has p6Doc produced any tests so far. If so, where are they located?
I just want to take a gander at them and see where the holes are.
Yes, and especially if by "p6Doc" you mean "Joseph". :-) Take a look,
his stuff is alread
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:53:02PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
Brent Dax had a nice suggestion for Perl 6 test organization. I like it
tremendously.
I repost it here to solicit comments -- to make this work, I'll need to
ch
Has p6Doc produced any tests so far. If so, where are they located? I just
want to take a gander at them and see where the holes are.
Tanton
"Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:53:02PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> > Brent Dax had a nice suggestion for Perl 6 test organization. I like it
> > tremendously.
> >
> > I repost it here to solicit comments -- to make this work, I'll need to
change
>
> Did anyon
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:53:02PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> Brent Dax had a nice suggestion for Perl 6 test organization. I like it
> tremendously.
>
> I repost it here to solicit comments -- to make this work, I'll need to change
Did anyone comment on it? It seems a sane to me, and I certainly
From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:lt@;toetsch.at]
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > From: chromatic [mailto:chromatic@;wgz.org]
> >
> >>Brent Dax had a nice suggestion for Perl 6 test organization.
> >>I like it tremendously.
> >
> > isn't it missing: t/var/list/...?
>
> *All* (parrot as well as perl6) t
Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: chromatic [mailto:chromatic@;wgz.org]
Brent Dax had a nice suggestion for Perl 6 test organization.
I like it tremendously.
isn't it missing: t/var/list/...?
*All* (parrot as well as perl6) tests are currently a grown unorganized
mess - though working.
If this
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:23:51 +, Dave Whipp wrote:
> I agree that CVS makes it difficult to change things later (I assume you
> don't want to risk Subversion in its current state). However, I would
> suggest that you hold off creating the elaborate structure until we need
> it. Bucket loads
From: chromatic [mailto:chromatic@;wgz.org]
>
> Brent Dax had a nice suggestion for Perl 6 test organization.
> I like it tremendously.
isn't it missing: t/var/list/...?
Per Apocalpyse 2, RFC 175:
>
> [1,2,3]
>
> is syntactic sugar for something like:
>
> scalar(list(1,2,3));
>
> Depe
Chromatic wrote:
I'm prepared to start checking in Perl 6 tests on behalf of the Perl 6
documentation folks. These should be considered functional tests -- they are
exploring the behavior we expect from Perl 6. Anything that's not yet
implemented will be marked as a TODO test, and we'll figure o
28 matches
Mail list logo
