- Original Message
From: Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org
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');
This is an adverb on the infix:== operator, and might
desugar to something
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
sub sqrt(Num where { 0 = $_ = Real::Max } $x) {
(0..$x/2 :by(Real::Epsilon)).min: { abs $x - $^candidate ** 2 }
}
So do you really mean as declarative a manner as possible? Or would
you consider this example to go beyond possible?
I would declare
Moritz Lenz wrote:
A few months ago Larry proposed to add some testing
facilites to the language itself, because we want to
culturally encourage testing, and because the test
suite defines the language, so we need to specify the
behaviour of our testing facilities anyway.
If we're going to
Moritz Lenz wrote:
$x == 1e5 :ok('the :ok makes this is a test');
I can't help feeling that there's an end-weight problem here: The fact
that it is a test is the essence of statement.
If we're thinking of it as a library, then the MMD way of thinking might
be appropriate: we know
- Original Message
From: Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org
test Unit::Customer plan 3 {
use Customer;
my Customer $cust .= new( :fname, :lname);
$cust.fname eq 'Billy' :ok;
# plan assumes 2 referrals
# won't work because we can't interpolate?
Ovid wrote:
Regarding the disadvantages:
However nothing in life is free, we pay for it with a
few disadvantages:
* We nearly double the number of built-in operators
by adding an :ok multi
Yes, but conceptually this will be transparent to the end user, right?
They'll just know that
There are a few interesting points on which I'd like to comment
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
In other words, test functionality sufficient for the compiler may not
be adequate for module testing. But other functions can be developed in
Test modules that can be hooked into a general testing
Ovid wrote:
One concern is where Larry asks:
I wonder how often we'd have people making the error
of trying to interpoalte into :okbad $x pardner
I'd be one of them. The following is a very common idiom:
for my $method (@methods) {
can_ok $object, $method;
Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
sub sqrt(Num where { 0 = $_ = Real::Max } $x) {
(0..$x/2 :by(Real::Epsilon)).min: { abs $x - $^candidate ** 2 }
}
So do you really mean as declarative a manner as possible? Or would
you consider this example to go beyond possible?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:22, Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org wrote:
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
But it is interesting to think about the case where a user wants two
different diagnostic test messages (to all the testing gurus out there:
do you actually want such a feature?). It shouldn't be too
- Original Message
From: jerry gay jerry@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:22, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
But it is interesting to think about the case where a user wants two
different diagnostic test messages (to all the testing gurus out there:
do
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:51 PM, jerry gay jerry@gmail.com wrote:
$x == $y
:ok({ .true ?? 'message' !! 'failure message' })
:diag( 'tap comment', :some_tap_propertysome values)
I just want to stress again that I would like to see no focus on just tap
emitters. While I realize this
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
4) Testing software is different from debugging or running software. Running
is about providing functionality to the user. Debugging is about getting
expected behaviour and discovering why behaviour exhibited is not what is
expected / specified.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Dave Whipp wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
A few months ago Larry proposed to add some testing
facilites to the language itself, because we want to
culturally encourage testing, and because the test
suite defines the language, so we need to specify the
behaviour of our testing
Hi!
I'd like to get started adding these:
is capitalize(:string($a)), Pugs Is Cool!, capitalize works with named
arg
rakudo and pugs both fail this test. Should I add it anyway? And should I
just mail patches to rakudo...@perl.org? Or should this technically be
pugs?
--
-fREW
fREW Schmidt wrote:
I'd like to get started adding these:
is capitalize(:string($a)), Pugs Is Cool!, capitalize works with named
arg
rakudo and pugs both fail this test. Should I add it anyway?
Yes. We have a mechanism for skipping tests that the implementations
fail. Just write it like
16 matches
Mail list logo
