No, nobody's supposed to parse it. It's just so if you want you can look at *only* the output of the tester, not the output of the tester mooshed together with the output of the compiler.
Our tester does a bunch of compilation and esp on sbcl, the test output proper gets mixed together with lots of chaff, so it's hard to find, e.g., which tests are failing... ___ Robert P. Goldman Principal Scientist, SIFT, LLC www.sift.info ...... Original Message ....... On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:16:48 +0200 "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <t...@freebits.de> wrote: >Robert Goldman writes: > >> An alternative solution would be to provide a :stream or :filename init >> argument for the test-op operation class and bind a dynamic variable >> around every perform, making the stream or filename available for >> writing.... > >To me, the most interesting advantage that I see in ASDF providing a >test operation, is that it should allow for automatic testing of >arbitrary software packages. > >I do not see how providing a stream argument is relevant to that. Or do >you propose that people should /parse/ a test framework's output? > > -T. > > >_______________________________________________ >asdf-devel mailing list >asdf-devel@common-lisp.net >http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
