Author: allison Date: Mon Apr 2 00:25:22 2007 New Revision: 17943 Modified: trunk/t/pmc/class.t
Log: Respond to some questions on what Class should be testing. Modified: trunk/t/pmc/class.t ============================================================================== --- trunk/t/pmc/class.t (original) +++ trunk/t/pmc/class.t Mon Apr 2 00:25:22 2007 @@ -157,7 +157,8 @@ ok 2 - New Class PMC has no attributes ok 3 - attributes() is read-only accessor OUT -## Q: what attributes the base Class have by default? +## Q: what attributes does the base Class have by default? +## A: it has no attributes by default # L<PDD15/Class PMC API/=item add_attribute> pir_output_is( <<'CODE', <<'OUT', 'add_attribute'); @@ -203,6 +204,9 @@ ok 4 - add_attribute() with existing attribute name fails OUT ## Q: should adding an attribute with an invalid type name fail? +## A: since type compatibility checks does, you could specify a type +# that isn't registered as a class/role. So, no, I don't think it should try to +# validate types. ## NOTE i think this belongs in the Object PMC tests # L<PDD15/Class PMC API> @@ -250,6 +254,9 @@ OUT ## NOTE test that accessor is read-only ## NOTE figure out what parents the base Class has by default (if any) +## A: It has no parents by default. (Note, the parents stored in the 'parents' +# attribute aren't the parents of Class, they're the parents of the class object +# that is an instance of Class.) ## TODO add_parent @@ -269,6 +276,7 @@ OUT ## NOTE test that accessor is read-only ## NOTE figure out what roles the base Class has by default (if any) +# A: None. See comment for parents(). ## TODO add_role
