Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
I'd like to reject the philosophy. I'd prefer that the language define perl. I.e. not an implementation. Rather the spec. Shouldn't the tests be designed from the spec? (Yes, it might depend if we can become machine independent (e.g. '%' or NaN. Which is another forum.) <chaim> >>>>> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> writes: MGS> It has often be said that perl defines perl. I'd like to change that a bit MGS> and say perl's regression tests should define perl. The state of the MGS> existing tests is somewhat inadequate to the task. Part of the problem is MGS> tests are written whenever someone feels like adding a test. MGS> Instead, every new feature added/changed and bug fixed (ie. every code MGS> patch) must have an associated patch to the testing suite. No test, no MGS> acceptance. Period. MGS> While this may seem draconian, it should rapidly raise the overall quality MGS> of the patches by forcing authors to do more than dash off a little C code. -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. chaimf@pobox.com +1-718-236-0183Thread Previous | Thread Next