Paul Johnson wrote: > That would be the "uncoverable" feature, which I haven't quite finished > yet. It does just what is asked for, that is you can mark constructs as > uncoverable which means that the sense of the error is reversed - the > construct will be in error iff it is executed. > > There are three main sections of work still left to be completed: > > 1. Find some nice way expressing what is uncoverable. For subroutines > this is easy. For statements it is not hard. For branches it is > tricky and for conditions I'm somewhat stumped. The current > method I use is based on implementation details.
What's the current syntaxes you're toying with? > 3. Provide a way to specify uncoverable code within the source file. > I'm surprised that many people want this, but they do. Do you mean so we can mark what lines and things are uncoverable inline? Right next to the code itself? Of course! What would the alternative be?
