On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 23/04/2013 23:47, Rick Waldron a écrit : > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that both es-discuss and >> apparently even TC39 meetings with notes have left ambiguity in what people >> understood the TC39 agreement was. I believe this ambiguity is due to this >> pretty bad communication format called the English language (For anyone in >> doubt, French is as bad; I'm afraid it's a property inherent to natural >> languages :-) ). >> >> This is wasting everyone time and energy. This generate frustration >> additional to the already existing frustration caused by standardizing >> __proto__ at all. >> So I would like to encourage TC39 to discuss around and create consensus >> around a test suite. > > > Do you mean something other then the one that already exists? > > http://test262.ecmascript.org/# > > If TC39 adds tests to this test suite *before* ES6 becomes an official > standard, use this, yes. Please writes hundreds of tests for ES6. > For the anecdote, I've started a test suite for proxies [1] and the > exercise led to feedback [2][3], some of which were spec bugs [4][5]. So I > don't know, maybe there is some virtue to write tests before the spec is > shipped. Not for the sake of writing tests or even the sake of getting a > conformance test suite, but for the spec of spending time carefully > reviewing the drafts and catching spec bugs early. For the sake of having a > structured medium to discuss on and not just plain-text emails with > occasional code snippets. > > But I don't see TC39 adding tests. Worse, I see the same conversations > happening over and over on __proto__. Even after the January TC39 meeting. > Even with the notes, ambiguities and misunderstanding remain. > > So, until tests are added to http://test262.ecmascript.org/, I propose > using a test suite not as a conformance tool, but as a conversation medium. > This is an attempt to move the conversation from words like "poisoned", > "realm", "magic" (!) to a conversation where there are a bunch (20, 50, > 100?) of test cases where TC39 says "for all of these cases, we agree the > test must pass" and where people can have a very concrete medium to point > out and say "I agree this test must pass, but this more subtle test case > must pass too" (refining the previous test case) > > The goal of the test suite I have started is not to run it. It's for human > beings to discuss around it; to read it, explain why they disagree, correct > an existing test or add one for each disagreement. A communication medium > in essence. > At this point, I believe that a test suite would be an excellent > complement to meeting notes to capture consensus. > Again, I suggest subscribing to https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/test262-discuss This conversation is happening right now, starting here: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/test262-discuss/2013-April/000169.html Rick > > David > > [1] https://github.com/DavidBruant/ProxyTests > [2] > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-September/025032.html > [3] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-October/025555.html > [4] > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-September/025033.html > [5] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-October/025615.html > [6] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=837627 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
