On 03/09/2012 06:20 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The same story goes for unittests which can't be independently
ran to get a list of all failing unittests
D unittest blocks are for code correctness (as opposed to other meanings
of the unfortunately overused term unit testing e.g. the
On 3/13/12 2:21 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/09/2012 06:20 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The same story goes for unittests which can't be independently
ran to get a list of all failing unittests
D unittest blocks are for code correctness (as opposed to other meanings
of the unfortunately
On 03/13/2012 11:04 AM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 3/13/12 2:21 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/09/2012 06:20 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The same story goes for unittests which can't be independently
ran to get a list of all failing unittests
D unittest blocks are for code correctness (as
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 15:04:09 Ary Manzana wrote:
How can you re-run just a failing test? (without having to run all the
previous tests that will succeed?)
You can't, not without essentially creating your own unit testing framework.
D's unit testing framework is quite simple. If you
On 03/13/2012 11:49 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/13/12, Ali Çehreliacehr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Developers wouldn't
want that to happen every time a .d file is compiled.
Well luckily unittests don't run when you compile a .d file but when
you run the app! :)
Good point. :)
Our C++ unit
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:28:24AM -0700, Ali Çehreli wrote:
[...]
We are getting a little off topic here but I've been following the
recent unit test thread about writing to files. Unit tests should not
have external interactions like that either. For example, no test
should connect to an
On 03/09/2012 02:25 AM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 3/8/12 6:11 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:56:09PM -0300, Ary Manzana wrote:
[...]
I don't think it would be hard to implement boolean logic inside
version.
It's not hard at all.
Would it make sense if I make a pull request
I have a felling people will end up abusing string mixins to generate
version statements, and this will be the exact opposite effect Walter
wanted. The same story goes for unittests which can't be independently
ran to get a list of all failing unittests, and so people are coming
up with their own
On 2012-03-08 06:38, Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
} else {
// do something else
assert(false, Unsupported operating system);
}
}
The only way I've been able to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:12:44 -, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 06:38:48 Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:07:08 -0500, James Miller ja...@aatch.net wrote:
On 8 March 2012 18:38, Tyler Jameson Little beatgam...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
I find it interesting that having this feature would somehow enable
abuse, yet we can do so much abuse already with CTFE, templates, and
string mixins. One large pain in the ass is to pass an integral at
compile time. I sometimes wish to use a syntax such as version(foo ==
5) {}. The only
On 3/8/12 2:38 AM, Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
} else {
// do something else
assert(false, Unsupported operating system);
}
}
The only way I've been able to do
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:56:09PM -0300, Ary Manzana wrote:
[...]
I don't think it would be hard to implement boolean logic inside
version.
It's not hard at all.
Would it make sense if I make a pull request for it?
Walter would reject it.
He has stated clearly in the past that he intended
On 3/8/12 6:11 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:56:09PM -0300, Ary Manzana wrote:
[...]
I don't think it would be hard to implement boolean logic inside
version.
It's not hard at all.
Would it make sense if I make a pull request for it?
Walter would reject it.
He has
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:25:53PM -0300, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 3/8/12 6:11 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:56:09PM -0300, Ary Manzana wrote:
[...]
I don't think it would be hard to implement boolean logic inside
version.
It's not hard at all.
Would it make sense if I
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
} else {
// do something else
assert(false, Unsupported operating system);
}
}
The only way I've been able to do this, is
On 8 March 2012 18:38, Tyler Jameson Little beatgam...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
} else {
// do something else
assert(false,
On 03/07/2012 10:07 PM, James Miller wrote:
On 8 March 2012 18:38, Tyler Jameson Littlebeatgam...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
} else {
// do
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 06:38:48 Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
I would like to do something like this:
version (linux || BSD) {
// do something...
} else {
version (Windows) {
// do something else
} else {
// do something else
assert(false,
Now, you could do
version(x)
version = xOrY
else version(y)
version = xOrY
version(xOrY) {}
Huh, clever! I like it!! I hope I don't have to do that very
often, though...
Of course, if the issue is linux || FreeBSD, you might want to
just consider
using Posix. Unless you're doing
Now, you could do
version(x)
version = xOrY
else version(y)
version = xOrY
version(xOrY) {}
Huh, clever! I like it!! I hope I don't have to do that very
often, though...
Of course, if the issue is linux || FreeBSD, you might want to
just consider
using Posix. Unless you're doing
22 matches
Mail list logo
