On 11 January 2011 18:09, Thomas Tuegel <ttue...@gmail.com> wrote: > One thing to do would be to change the interface so there is only one > "Testable" class, allow tests in it to run in IO,
I would be happy with this. > and provide some > kind of combinator for denoting safe/unsafe tests. That might be a possible extension. I am of the opinion that "unsafe" tests (i.e. those which cannot be run in parallel with other tests) are both rare and undesirable from a design perspective, and so we should not provide explicit support for them. > One other thing we've been discussing is what to do about TestOptions. > The fallout of this discussion is essentially that everything > TestOptions is trying to do, GetOpt does better. > ... > have a method such as "options :: [OptDescr (t -> t)]" in class > Testable. Option 3 is to delegate option parsing to the test provider. > I prefer option 2: compared to option 3, it enforces standardization > more rigidly and takes some of the work off test provider authors. Option 2 seems like a reasonable choice. GetOpt isn't perfect (I like cmdargs) but it does have the considerable advantage of being a de-facto standard and is in the base package. I think your idea to use [OptDescr (t -> t)] is particularly elegant! I look forward to seeing your patch :-). Let me (and the list) know if any more issues come up. Cheers, Max _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
