On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 15:54 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 03:05 5/19/2005, Simon Kitching wrote:
> >On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 17:58 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > > Robert et al.,
> > >
> > > Your test cases are self-describing and easy to follow. One can hardly
> > > appreciate the work gone into puttin
At 03:05 5/19/2005, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 17:58 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Robert et al.,
>
> Your test cases are self-describing and easy to follow. One can hardly
> appreciate the work gone into putting in place something as delicate
> and tedious as these test cases. Well d
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 13:05 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> My document here
>http://people.apache.org/~skitching/jcl-req.txt
> describes a specific scenario where I think static binding doesn't work
> (see b4) - and it is quite a reasonable requirement I think. Of course
> there are many scen
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 13:05 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 17:58 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> > At first I was a bit puzzled that the static branch failed, and
> > initially suspected the correctness of the test cases. However, given their
> > construction, it is only nor
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 17:58 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Robert et al.,
>
> Your test cases are self-describing and easy to follow. One can hardly
> appreciate the work gone into putting in place something as delicate
> and tedious as these test cases. Well done!
Yes, I think so to.
>
> At first I
Robert et al.,
Your test cases are self-describing and easy to follow. One can hardly
appreciate the work gone into putting in place something as delicate
and tedious as these test cases. Well done!
At first I was a bit puzzled that the static branch failed, and
initially suspected the correctness
