"Smith, Barry F." <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > You are arguing against a change in the abstract because you love > next! You are making up stray men and attacking them. Wait until > there is a real proposal then point out flaws and make suggestions > on how to improve it. There is no reason to develop the new model > until we have the test harness done so the new model would have any > hope of working.
I'm hearing "when we get rid of 'next'" as though it's a foregone conclusion. I think 'next' provides value, but if a testing system is shown to keep 'next' clean without undue burden on developers, I don't have a problem removing it. I think doing that is hard. > Regardless of what next/.../... model you want we all benefit > greatly from a much faster testing. Surely you cannot be opposed to > that. Yes, let's revisit this thread AFTER the testing system is working.