On 10/28/05, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The code is designed well enough that adding new features is quick and
> easy. Unfortunately, whenever I need to change my code I fire up a Web
> server and view the results in the browser and then write the tests
> after I've written the code (this is
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:21:40 -0800, Kevin Scaldeferri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:10 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > Yes. Ditch emacs. It knows only the *wrong* styles.
>
> uh... yeah... okay. You realize elisp is Turing-complete, right?
Um, yeah. Right. My cat is Turing
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:14:32 +0100, H.Merijn Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue 14 Dec 2004 16:04, "Clayton, Nik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I've normally got enough going on in my head when writing code,
> > worrying about the house style should not be one of them.
>
> Wrong. It shoul
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 09:46:07PM -0500, Danny R. Faught wrote:
> Re: The Craft of Software Testing...
>
> Adam Turoff wrote:
> >It's out of print and nearly impossible to find. I haven't read it yet,
> >so I can't say whether it is as seminal as McBreen say
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Three I would thoroughly recommend, although not Perl related in any
> way, are:
>
> Lessons Learned in Software Testing: a Context-driven Approach
> Cem Kaner, James Bach
> Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Inc; ISBN
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:27:56PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> Is the data used for testers.cpan.org available anywhere in one
> comprehensive chunk?
>
> I looked around testers.cpan.org, and from what I can tell, it's
> only available in a pre-digested report
Is the data used for testers.cpan.org available anywhere in one
comprehensive chunk?
I looked around testers.cpan.org, and from what I can tell, it's
only available in a pre-digested report format. Surely it's
reconstructable from the cpan-testers archive, but anywhere else?
Thanks,
Z.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:09:41PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
>
> The POD features under discussion are testing features. The discussion
> of SAXish vs. DOMish was a tangent only.
>
Good. Then it sounds like POD-SAX vs. POD-DOM is one less issue to
resolve this week.
Z.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:33:40PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > And I'm not sure this is an issue for perl-qa to resolve. POD Shall
> > Not Change[*] from a markup perspective. Whether the tools
> > change/improve/multiply is
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> OPEN ITEMS:
> Note: Not all of these have RFCs associated with them. I would simply
> like to form a list consensus of how we want to address them.
>
> 1) Pod parsers:
> Marek Rouchal and Barry Slaymaker are working on
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> Dave Storrs wrote:
> >
> > Barrie Slaymaker's RFC 11:
> > Examples encoded with =also for|begin|end POD commands
> > which hasn't been updated in 48 days.
> >
> > is everyone comfortable declaring them Fr
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 02:27:07AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 12:46:55AM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > http://dev.perl.org/pm/pos.html mentions the following risk in perl6
> > development:
> >
> > > 4.We produce a slower interpreter.
> >
> > It is
12 matches
Mail list logo
