[dmd-internals] What is the point of runnable/testdate.d?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:56:30 Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:45:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought
> >>that>>
> > that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since
> > std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's
> > tests.
> > 
> > So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we
> > just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the
> > first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see
> > in std.date, not dmd.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Primarily historical accident of how/where walter evolved things.
> There's little value in removing tests that work since there's little
> guarantee (without careful evaluation) that there actually are
> duplicate tests elsewhere.  As code is rearranged and deprecated,
> removing worthless parts is worth doing.
> 
> btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
> makes them extra wordy and longer than n
> ecessary.  Feels like some bad
> training from academia.

It probably is. For essays and the like, that's definitely what you're supposed 
to do. It doesn't work as well in smaller communications like e-mail, but I 
still end up repeating the key points at the end or it just feels off to me.

In any case, it sounds like runnable/testdate.d should just be removed then.

- Jonathan M Davis