…or that there's many thousands of tests (or many, many, many thousands of tests if you count all the 3rd party libraries that have been testing against 1.3.0 snapshots for months with nary a related hiccup), many of them related to exceptions and other error conditions, but no one was clever enough to write a test ahead of time to account for the change in behaviour. Either way. :-)
Of course, this is how most regression tests are born… - Chas On Oct 11, 2011, at 6:16 PM, pmbauer wrote: > Would now be a bad time to observe there was a large change made to the way > exceptions are handled, and the lack of guard-rails (no tests for exception > handling behavior) may have contributed to this regression? > https://github.com/clojure/clojure/commit/8fda34e4c77cac079b711da59d5fe49b74605553 > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 3:02:47 PM UTC-7, Stuart Sierra wrote: > I was a little worried about this when the exception behavior for fns was > changed. I think it's solvable, but don't know right now what the solution is. > > -S > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
