Hello Malcolm, Monday, October 23, 2006, 1:57:38 PM, you wrote:
>> I think it would be a nice requirement that for a test to be marked as >> expected-to-fail there must be an open bug about it. > If the "expected/unexpected" terminology is confusing, then maybe it > would be better to rename them to "desired/undesired" failures? it seems that we need 3 classes :) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
