Re: Integrated Testing - Peppable?

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:40:55 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy, > >> No prose can compare to a live, functional demonstration. > > I agree; that's what my prototype amounts to: > > > > (sorry, it's Windows-only) > > But

Re: Integrated Testing - Peppable?

Thanks, John, I think there's a true, powerful, difference between inline tests and external (albeit adjacent) ones. I think the developer experience should be superior with inline tests for several reasons: - during initial development, without any navigation beyond the Enter key, you flow direc

Re: Integrated Testing - Peppable?

Thanks, Jeremy, > No prose can compare to a live, functional demonstration. I agree; that's what my prototype amounts to: (sorry, it's Windows-only) But I take your larger message, and John's, to heart - this isn't worthy of making it i

Re: Integrated Testing - Peppable?

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Please excuse the intrusion from an admirer, but not a user, of Python. I've got an idea that I think could improve the language and might be relatively simple to implement. I've developed a prototype with a toy language here:

Re: Integrated Testing - Peppable?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:52:29 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So... Should I turn this into a PEP? I would think a much more productive step one would be to put together the proposed functionality with unittest and the trace module, and use the output of your tool to drive some sort of simple ou

Integrated Testing - Peppable?

Hi, Please excuse the intrusion from an admirer, but not a user, of Python. I've got an idea that I think could improve the language and might be relatively simple to implement. I've developed a prototype with a toy language here: , with screenshot here: