> > I feel the same about it. Also I don't particularly like the solution > with the space, and/or camel case labels (like "Collections- > KernelDropTests"). Michael, what would you suggest as a scheme? How > about the following solution I suggested in a previous mail? > > Kernel-Numbers > Kernel-Traits > Kernel-Compiler > ... > Libraries-Collections > Libraries-Regex > Libraries-Network > ... > Tests-Kernel > Tests-Libraries > ... > > In the class categories we could still have a fine-grained structure > for tests, like > > Tests-Kernel-Numbers > Tests-Kernel-Traits > Tests-Libraries-Collections > ... > > Like this we have sort of a "tests close to the code" since the last > part, e.g., "Libraries-Collections" would match the category structure > of the implementation. Basically it's just that we prefix the > categories with "Test-" and that we have a coarse Top level structure. > Stef, wouldn't that also (partly) satisfy your wish of organizing > tests close to the code?
I do not like it but it looks like the best compromise with the tools we have right now For me it goes against OOP and encapsulation but....there is a pattern matching ugly trick. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
