dmd testsuite naming scheme

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

Definitely!

+1

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> On 1/3/12 12:57 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>
>> On 03-01-2012 16:44, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:39:34 +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen
>>> <xtzgzorex at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03-01-2012 13:36, Trass3r wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I honestly wouldn't know where to add or search for a test case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't really matter where they go. A collection of test cases
>>>>>> with a theme to them might go in a named file, a random one might be
>>>>>> appended to any of the test* files.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Won't this potentially lead to test duplication?
>>>>> Considering that the testsuite already takes quite some time to run
>>>>> this
>>>>> isn't a desirable trend imho.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Test duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing. In my experience, it
>>>> often happens that a tiny difference between two seemingly equal tests
>>>> can be all that matters.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, grouping tests into files based on language
>>>> features might be a good idea. If anything, to be able to navigate the
>>>> test suite.
>>>>
>>>> - Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> There is some opportunity in creating systematic feature tests backed
>>> with coverage analysis. There are still too many uncovered areas.
>>> This not only helps to find remaining bugs but gives a specification
>>> like overview of a feature state.
>>
>>
>> I still say D needs a formal specification more than a test suite as
>> some kind of excuse for a specification. (And no, I don't consider
>> d-p-l.org a spec; a guide at best.)
>>
>> - Alex
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Andrei



-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.