Joseph F. Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Allison Randal wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Patch to where? p/l/perl6? I don't think they should go in its /t;
maybe a new directory, /fulltests?
We have standards for a reason. Stick with /t.
Allison
Well, my point was that language tests will
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:44:43 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
in order for the docs to be databased later
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:22:45PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
: I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
: ambiguity, it should autovivify. In this case, since we know they
: wanted an array (they used the explicitly), we'll autovivify an array.
: (I say virtually no because
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:43:01 +, Dave Whipp wrote:
I see where you are coming from ... but is the IO infrastructure really the
most primitive thing to rely on? It may be at the moment; but I expect
that it will become more complex. Cprint may be a built-in right now;
but it should probably
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
The fact that we don't need Cprint is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!
Right, so whats wrong with using one of parrot's most basic ops? Thats
all perl6 print
is; a small wrapper around a basic parrot
Richard Nuttall wrote:
I agree with that. take the example of reverse (array) in this thread.
Really, the testing should have a number of other tests to be complete,
including thorough testing of boundary conditions.
e.g. - tests of reverse on
0. undef
1. Empty list
2. (0..Inf) - Error ?
3.
Dave Whipp wrote:
Richard Nuttall wrote:
Writing a complete test suite really also needs reasonable knowledge
of how the internals are written in order to understand the kinds of
tests that are likely to provoke errors. (More thoughts on this if
requested).
[...]
Consider item 0. Do we
I did check in a fix (or part of it) for restarting JIT.
- changed restartable OPs to have jump flag set
- test PC (eax) if zero, stop JIT
This makes all test succeed on i386/linux under JIT too.
Other architectures could follow the scheme of the i386 code, which
shouldn't be too hard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Please include the string: [perl #18336]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18336
-newhandles =
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:56:32PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
Andrew Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
should do them using perl's standard testing format (i.e.
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:38:45 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
I just need a little clarification about yield().
Cyield is exactly like a Creturn, except that when you
call the subroutine next time, it resumes from after the Cyield.
how do you tell the difference between a
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I did check in a fix (or part of it) for restarting JIT.
Full restart for JIT/i386 is in CVS now.
This implied some changes:
- interpreter has now a jit_info *
- build_asm had a jit_info on the stack, this is currently static, but
will be allocated soon.
- architectures
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:32 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
-Things that are currently unimplemented in P6C are in the TODO
folder, per
David Wheeler's suggestion.
That's not actually what I meant. You use TODO blocks in your test
scripts, like this:
TODO: {
local
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 11:22 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
=section 1.1.2.1 Numeric Context
Numeric Context is a context full of cheesy goodness. For example, the
following code will put C$obj in Cint context:
my int $i = $obj;
blah blah blah...
=seealso Context
=seealso Numeric
Michael Lazzaro:
# Do we have anything to mitigate the list-construction issues
# yet, or is
# that part still problematic?
Perhaps we can add an =bullet command that's the equivalent of:
=over 4
=item *
(one paragraph)
=back
Unless you're
I've asked Allison to give us someone on p6i who can tell us exactly
what tests are appropriate and how they should be coded, assuming she
can get someone to agree to it. ;-)
I expect that person should be able to tell us exactly (1) what sorts
of tests they want, and (2) how we should build
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: (I'm also hoping POD itself will change to be more descriptive, perhaps
: partly based on what we learn here, but that'll be in the distant
: future.)
You are certainly authorized to experiment with POD variants in the
near
Michael Lazzaro:
# But I would imagine that in order to be helpful at all to p6i and QA,
# we need to make the tests paranoid, tedious, and as encompassing as
# possible. There may be implementation-specific tests (like memleaks,
# etc.) we can't help much with, but syntax and behavioral
#
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:22:37AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
But I would imagine that in order to be helpful at all to p6i and QA,
we need to make the tests paranoid, tedious, and as encompassing as
possible. There may be implementation-specific tests (like memleaks,
etc.) we can't
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of the standard
testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory structure to
organize things. Since most tests are not worthy of inclusion in the
docs (do you really
Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: (I'm also hoping POD itself will change to be more
: descriptive, perhaps partly based on what we learn here, but
: that'll be in the distant future.)
You are certainly authorized to experiment with POD
Garrett Goebel:
# =* level1
# = level2
# =+ level3
# =* level4
# = level3
# = level1
Too much punctuation, IMHO. If it ever does become necessary to do
multi-level bulleting and stuff, we might as well make it explicit with
=over/=back.
--Brent Dax [EMAIL
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:49:35PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: This get back to defining the focus/level of the testing that we want to
: achieve. Some of these items may make sense for paranoid testing; but
: not as part of a comprehensive test suite.
Er, I thought it was paranoia that makes a
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Or if the leading = really must be required:
=* level1
= level2
=+ level3
=* level4
= level3
= level1
What about this for bulletted lists:
=item * level1
=item ** level2
=item *** level3
Brent Dax wrote:
Garrett Goebel:
# =* level1
# = level2
# =+ level3
# =* level4
# = level3
# = level1
Too much punctuation, IMHO. If it ever does become necessary to do
multi-level bulleting and stuff, we might as well make it
explicit with
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Or if the leading = really must be required:
=* level1
= level2
=+ level3
=* level4
= level3
= level1
I don't
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:00:05 +, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of the standard
testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory structure to
organize things. Since most
Garrett Goebel:
# Brent Dax wrote:
#
# Garrett Goebel:
# # =* level1
# # = level2
# # =+ level3
# # =* level4
# # = level3
# # = level1
#
# Too much punctuation, IMHO. If it ever does become necessary to do
# multi-level bulleting and stuff, we
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of
# the standard
# testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory
#
# Dunno, looking for a way where we can harness the authors for
#
Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Or if the leading = really must be required:
=* level1
= level2
=+ level3
=* level4
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:47 AM, chromatic wrote:
On the whole, I prefer external tests. Brent's schema looks good.
OK, good enough for me. Without objection, let's do it that way.
MikeL
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:50:34PM -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
: I'd love to see a cleaner POD, with tables, better support for lists,
: and the ability to turn syntax inferencing on a per-document basis.
We used a preprocessor to put tables into the POD for the Camel.
Lists don't seem to occur all
Chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Advantages of inline tests:
- close to the documentation
- one place to update
- harder for people to update docs without finding code
Plus, it gives us a mechanism to validate example-code
within documents
Disadvantages:
- doc tools must skip tests
I've written a frist version of the 1.1 - Literal Values subsection
(in Michael's schema).
It discusses the different ways of creating literal numbers and
strings in perl6.
There are no tests, and the format may be outdated. I will gladly
resubmit this in a more complete form.
I have
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:21:09AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of the
# standard testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory
#
# Dunno, looking
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Angel Faus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: vLex.com
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:03:30 +0100
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
I've written a frist version of the 1.1 - Literal
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
I'm happy pick a format and run with it. When we've a few
micro-sections
done, then we can review. I see (in another post) that Mike has opted
for
external, without objection. I'm abstaining. But I would like to see
executable
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:03:30PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
This is just a tentative draft, so feel free to delete/add at your own
taste.
Does it look ok? Any comments? (including grammar errors, of course)
I've tweaked the first bit on literal integers a bit, see what you
think.
Is anyone else getting all the traffic from this list twice? I don't get it from any
of the other p6 lists, so I'm not quite sure what's up.
--Dks
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:03:35PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Some notes WRT implementation in i386:
The first code in JIT is emitted by Parrot_jit_begin, the last 5 bytes
of this code are 5 nop's now.
When JIT is called again with a pc != code_start, i.e. for restart at
pc, then a jump
At 4:57 AM +0530 11/12/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
that case, why bother verifying?
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic blocks
and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so ...).
Oh, sure. But whether the metadata is
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
class is Num {
method FETCH { $n * $n } }.new }
Yes? No?
Not quite.
sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
class is Num {
has
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
I still prefer cached, which sounds less lingo-ish than memoized
but reads
better than same (Same as what?).
Insert obligatory reference to Eiffel here, which IIR uses the word
[ I've added some of Damian's text back into Michael's message to save
replying to two separate messages. ]
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:44:37AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:19 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
I can certainly see your point, but to me this is
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:40:05AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:50:34PM -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
: I'd love to see a cleaner POD, with tables, better support for lists,
: and the ability to turn syntax inferencing on a per-document basis.
We used a preprocessor to put
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:03:30PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
Does it look ok?
Sure.
Any comments? (including grammar errors, of course)
Here are mine.
---
=subsection Literal Values
=head1 Literal numbers
=head2 Integers
Integers can be
Dave Whipp:
# Maybe there's a terminology problem: but what is a regression
# test? In my world, we create a regression by running existing
My understanding is that a regression test is basically a test to make
sure a bug doesn't come back once it's been fixed.
--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:11:24PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
For example:
my $i = 2:101110; # binary
my $j = 3:1210112; # tertiary
my $k = 8:1270; # octal
Printing these would give 46, 1310, and 696 respectively.
Hmm. As companion to specifying
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
=subsection Literal Values
=head1 Literal numbers
=head2 Integers
Rather than using =head, each should be a subsection.
What should be the syntax for closing a section?
=section title
...
=end-section
Angel Faus wrote:
I've written a frist version of the 1.1 - Literal Values subsection
(in Michael's schema).
Alright, I have the tests done to match this section of the documentation.
Well, everything except 'bit', since the last time I checked (and this
could be resolved by now), there was
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:13:37PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
Is anyone else getting all the traffic from this list twice? I don't
get it from any of the other p6 lists, so I'm not quite sure what's
up.
Presumably you are subscribed to both perl6-documentation and perl6-all,
which is now
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:03:01PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
Maybe there's a terminology problem: but what is a regression test? In my
world, we create a regression by running existing tests: we don't write a
special test suite for the regression. There may be a small number of tests
that we
Michael Lazzaro:
# What should be the syntax for closing a section?
How about the empty string? Isn't the end of a section defined by EOF
or when the next section starts?
--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@roles=map {Parrot $_} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
Wire telegraph is a kind of a very,
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 04:08 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
Michael Lazzaro:
# What should be the syntax for closing a section?
How about the empty string? Isn't the end of a section defined by EOF
or when the next section starts?
I mean if you can have sections inside sections, how do you
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:56:28 +, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Alright, I have the tests done to match this section of the documentation.
Well, everything except 'bit', since the last time I checked (and this
could be resolved by now), there was some debate over Boolean types, and
I know bit was
chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:56:28 +, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
For the most part, they look fine to me. I'm a little concerned about some of
the numeric tests:
output_is('CODE', 'OUT', Simple Floats);
print 4.5;
print 0.0;
print 13.12343
CODE
4.50.013.12343
OUT
I'd be more
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 04:08 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
# Michael Lazzaro:
# # What should be the syntax for closing a section?
#
# How about the empty string? Isn't the end of a section
# defined by EOF
# or when the next section starts?
#
# I mean if you can
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:22:53 -0600
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What happens with this one:
256:255.255..0 # same as 256:255.255.0.0 ?
# or error?
On the contrary, it's
I deleted the thread for that first doc, but it just occured to me
that it didn't mention the 1_234_567 notation.
Luke
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:38:00PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:22:53 -0600
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What happens with this one:
256:255.255..0 # same as 256:255.255.0.0 ?
output_is('CODE', 'OUT', Simple Floats);
print 4.5;
print 0.0;
print 13.12343
CODE
4.50.013.12343
OUT
I'd be more comfortable with a newline between the numbers, just in case.
It's
not an issue in the string tests.
Alright, fine by me; I was wondering on that myself. Done
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:20:04PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: =head2 String as vector of ordinals
:
: Literals of the form Cv1.2.3.4 are parsed as a string
: composed of characters with the specified ordinals. This
: is an alternative, more readable way to construct
: (possibly unicode)
wrote on Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:50:34 -0800:
I'd love to see a cleaner POD,
Have you looked at perlpodspec, and had a look at the new Pod::Simple
formatters?
with tables,
I like tables, but it is sheer agony to produce tables in many output
formats. I'm starting to wonder whether some kind
Hello,
I have a question about the Parrot FAQ. I hope it's not too off-topic for this
list. The FAQ mentions that it would be nice to write the Perl to Bytecode
compiler in Perl and that there is no bootstrap problem.
Does this mean that the perl6 compiler is written in perl5 and it will be
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
What should be the syntax for closing a section?
I'm partial to the LaTeX approach, where you specify the level and the
computer figures out the rest. It seems like either level or closing-tag
is sufficient by itself. Levels put all the information
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ I notice that Piers has just said about the same as me in one
sentence. ]
Ah, but I get lots of practice boiling stuff down when I'm writing the
summaries. Though the current one is still giving me headaches -- I'm
about halfway through perl6-language
66 matches
Mail list logo
