chromatic wrote: > On Wednesday 20 June 2007 15:53:59 Moritz Lenz wrote: > >> Basically I think that >> - we need the test somewhere and >> - it is not a test that one would usually write unless he/she found a >> regression in one implementation. >> >> Therefore it would be good to have them somewhere separately, in an >> implementation-specific manner. That would reduce the "wtf?"-effect >> while reading the official tests. >> Of course all other implementations have to pass them as well... >> >> I'd suggest t/regression/$implementation/ in the pugs repository as the >> new location for such tests. > > That reminds me of a Jarkko quote from p5p: > > "Crashes Perl (or Used To)" is not a really useful classifying > criterion, it's about as useful as "the number of characters in > the test is divisible by 73".
There is a bit of a difference because there is just one Perl 5 implementation, but multiple Perl 6 implementations. > If the test exercises something that's easy or possible to get wrong in any > implementation, it belongs in the appropriate classification for that feature > type for all implementations. I agree, but on the other hand it raised questions for somebody (Patrick) reading the test, although it was commented. How would you address the readability issue if you don't tests like these to separate files? Perhaps separate parse failure tests? -- Moritz Lenz http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
