On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:51:46PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I do not believe that it would be a good idea to mix perl5 and perl6 on
> any of the lists. If something is useful to perl5 send it on to p5p.
It would be artificial to split the two. Most of QA will be
applicable to all of Perl. We can develop ideas in perl-qa and then
offer them to both p5p and perl6-whatever as ready-made solutions.
"Its ready. It works. Take it if you want it."
Also, we have little to do until perl6 generates working code. So
we can spend the next year or so doing nothing useful, or we can spend
that time getting experience with perl5 and be better prepared to
serve perl6.
And honestly, anything we do here will improve perl5's QA.
> If you'd like a set of throw-away tests. That will be replaced with
> the formal spec. (Which may of course be the regression tests.)
> For the interim to iron out the kinks in qa. Great.
We could argue for days about this, but it boils down to this: Would
it really make a difference if we said we were writing a throw away
test suite as opposed to a permenant one? Not really.
Just plow on and let the language designers decide how they want
things spec'd. Should they decide the regression tests should be the
spec, we'll have one ready and waiting! If not, we still have a nice
set of tests.
Maybe I shouldn't even have brought it up.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
Sometimes these hairstyles are exaggerated beyond the laws of physics
- Unknown narrator speaking about Anime
