"Tanton Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, we can either use one generic test script, and write the perl6 > ourselves...or > we can create N specific test scripts which generate the perl6 for us given > a particular data set and after we have written the perl6 ourselves. Sounds > like duplication of effort and a maintenance problem to me. I would rather > stick with writing the perl6 and its output.
I don't think I've got the energy to debate basic SW development philosophy: just do a google on "merciless refactoring" or "agile software development" (or even "extreme programming"). The maintenance is only made more difficult if the abstractions are wrong. With the correct abstractions, most changes will be to the dataset (e.g. "add a test for -ve exponent") and are very simple. A few changes are extensions to the abstractions (e.g. "add an ERROR token as an output value"), and require a simple change to the code generator. If you're uncomfortable with using abstraction, then by all means stick with the low-level stuff (sorry, that sounds a bit harsh). Abstractions in code are best introduced by refactoring., not foresight. Dave.
