On 1/11/12 Jan 11 -1:16 AM, Daniel Herring wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Daniel Herring wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Jeff Cunningham wrote: >>> How about OK, FAIL, UNEXPECTEDOK, and EXPECTEDFAIL? >> >> FWIW, here's one established set of terms: >> PASS, FAIL, UNRESOLVED, UNTESTED, UNSUPPORTED >> (XPASS and XFAIL are not in POSIX; change test polarity if desired) >> http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix >
I guess I'd be inclined to say "too bad for POSIX" and add XPASS and XFAIL.... The reason that I'd be willing to flout (or "extend and extinguish" ;->) the standard is that there is no obvious advantage to POSIX compliance in this case that would compensate for the loss in information. cheers, r _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
