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
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
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) has a policy of
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
method foo() does assumeconserve_sum { ... }
method bar() does ensureconserve_sum { ... }
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.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:01:14AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
For example, I could conceive of a trait:
ok foo, :brokenrakudo
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
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, :brokenrakudo
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
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 it
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
Larry Wall wrote:
module MyTests {
sub group1 {
ok foo :nametest_foo; ## Q - would a label be better?
}
}
## Elsewhere
MyTests.group1.test_foo is also brokenrakudo;
I guess I don't see offhand what you're trying to do with that.
...
We must keep a clean
separation
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name 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
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
This fixes a typo and enables X+X to be an operator...
- MtnViewMark
Index: STD.pm
===
--- STD.pm (revision 25009)
+++ STD.pm (working copy)
@@ -1148,7 +1148,7 @@
X [
| infix X
|
12 matches
Mail list logo
