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

[Brad Roberts]

Changing tests is dangerous.  Without going back to the original code to make sure the original bug is still caught and
tested for by the moved code or the altered to be a even more reduced test case, there's a real risk of a reduction in
the quality of the test suite.  I'd personally LOVE it if not a single phobos import existed in any of the dmd test
suite.  Possibly even true for druntime imports in the dmd test suite.  However, it's not clear that the benefits
justify the risk.

On 8/14/2011 12:58 PM, kenji hara wrote:
> I think that the dmd tests depends on phobos should move to.
> 
> Kenji Hara
> 
> 2011/8/15 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________