* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-24 02:20]: > Here's the problem though "just as likely, no. It depends on > the author's intent". What is the user supposed to do when > confronted with a message that means "there might be a problem, > there might not, you should check the author's intent"? If I'm > a careful user running a real system for real money, I have to > assume the worst.
The same as currently. After all, nothing has actually changed. The only difference between TODO and PRETEND_OK is that the latter doesn’t place meaning on the feature when that meaning is not inherent to it. I didn’t propose a solution about how to reconcile the many conflicting use cases for PRETEND_OK; I merely proposed what amounts to a documentation fix, ie. that the name not make an undue promise about what the actual use case is. > The author's intent is clear for TODO (if we stick to the > documented meaning). It's also clear from SKIP. Really? *Why* did he choose to SKIP? Sure, when skipping is conditional, you can tell the reason from it. But what if some tests are unconditionally skipped without a message or comment? You don’t have any information about why the author thought they should be skipped. > Can you come up with an example that isn't one of these > meanings where test failures can definitely be ignored (not > maybe or likely or with further investigation but definitely) > by the end user? If you can then maybe it can be given a > meaningful name that makes the author's intent clear. Are you saying that the only use case ever for PRETEND_OK is as TODO according to your interpretation? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
