On Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 06:53:47 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at 11:16:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Is that an acceptable tradeof ?
I would consider this harmful... The spec already states this
about unit tests, so I'd guess the decision was taken in the
past conscientiously.
If you're worried about compilation time, you can always define
your unit tests in separate files that are included for
compilation only when needed.
Why is it harmful (actually asking, not telling you you're
wrong)? I thought we were going to use a pay for what you use
philosophy, if a unit test is not run then why is it paid for?
