Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought the solution might be more complex than it turned out to be, > and so I included a patch to the test suite to add a TODO test using > fresh_perl_is(). > > Rafael was quite rightly concerned about this. When the bug is fixed we > don't want unneeded fresh_perl_is() tests lying around. What is the > correct solution here? I was planning to submit another patch when the > fix was done. I suppose the passing TODO test would be a reminder to do > something.
In fact I was already thinking about a fix. That's why I didn't add a TODO test that was to be removed. > Is this the best way to handle this, or have I missed something? I think TODO fresh_perl_is() tests are fine, but once the TODO test passes, forking another interpreter isn't worth the pain. And the test should check the correctness of output, not the sole fact that it doesn't segfault. (except of course the rare cases where another interpreter is needed.)
