On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:14:43AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Well, I think a real coverage tool is bit more than that really. All
> the world is not statement coverage. In fact, although it is much
> better than nothing, statement coverage is a fairly weak coverage
> metric. Ideally we would have branch coverage at least, if not some of
> the more powerful metrics.
I'm fairly ignorant about anything beyond basic coverage, as I'm sure
most everyone else on this list is as well. Could you whip out a
summary of useful coverage techniques?
> I'm not sure how
> or if we could use the debugger to provide other coverage information.
> That sort of thing really requires some navel gazing - we would want to
> analyse our own parse tree or something. Hopefully that sort of thing
> will be possible in Perl 6, if not sooner.
At this point, Kurt will helpfully volunteer to say a few words about the
backend compiler and its utility here. Kurt?
> The other option is code instrumentation, but that requires parsing of
> the code. Could be done I suppose, but I wouldn't really want to.
I now drag Simon Cozens into the conversation to talk about his
rumored Perl parser. Simon?
