On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote: > Just the kind of stuff I like, looking forward to being able > to try it without having to understand how it works :-]
That's why I am excited about it as well. This simple, high-level description provides the best possible road map for how the code should work. There is no need for lower-level specs! > Probably off topic, but I'm reminded of my reaction to lots > of testing tools, especially the coverage stuff which produces > listings of execution paths. The intent of the listing is to determine > which lines of code are tested, but that's not what I see. > > When I see that, I don't think of testing, I think "what a wonderful, > automatically generated, explanation of how the pieces of the > app work together, and what the control flow looks like" > > I think the one I've seen is Figleaf, found here > http://pycheesecake.org/wiki/PythonTestingToolsTaxonomy Thanks for these remarks and the link. I myself basically never think in terms of execution paths. They are irrelevant to design, or rather, the *only* robust designs are designs that work for *all* execution paths. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
