Looking at t/operators/ternary.t...
At the bottom of the file, there is a test that reads:
{
# This parses incorrectly because it's parsed as Bool::True(!! Bool::False).
my $foo = eval q[ 1 ?? Bool::True !! Bool::False ];
is($foo, Bool::True, "a statement with both ??!! and :: in it d
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Looking at t/operators/ternary.t...
>
> At the bottom of the file, there is a test that reads:
>
> {
> # This parses incorrectly because it's parsed as Bool::True(!!
> Bool::False).
> my $foo = eval q[ 1 ?? Bool::True !! Bool::False ];
> is($foo, Bool::Tru
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Looking at t/operators/ternary.t...
>
> At the bottom of the file, there is a test that reads:
>
> {
> # This parses incorrectly because it's parsed as Bool::True(!!
> Bool::False).
> my $foo = eval q[ 1 ?? Bool::True !! Bool::False ];
> is($foo, Bool::Tru
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 15:53:59 Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Basically I think that
> - we need the test somewhere and
> - it is not a test that one would usually write unless he/she found a
> regression in one implementation.
>
> Therefore it would be good to have them somewhere separately, in an
> im
chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007 15:53:59 Moritz Lenz wrote:
>
>> Basically I think that
>> - we need the test somewhere and
>> - it is not a test that one would usually write unless he/she found a
>> regression in one implementation.
>>
>> Therefore it would be good to have them somew
