Yes there might be a better/more complete possibility, and someone might do
it in the future
I think I'd rather see an incremental fix now; AND wait for someone to write
an even better version later.
Perhaps once this patch is in, someone else will look at it
You could be that someone ;)
The reason I'm not too keen on adding this two unit tests is two-
folds:
First I think it belongs in Prototype core, secondly, I'm in the
process of rewriting a good deal of unit_tests so I really don't think
it's a good time to add features to it. I'd rather strengthen it as
much as possible
I don't have a timeframe for this unfortunately.
And yes, the API will change quite a bit as we'd like to map it more
closely to ruby's Test::Unit implementation.
I'm not far enough into refactoring to know how backward-compatible
this rewrite will be.
Will make sure to let you know as soon as
Based on Mislavs function here's on that also handles special cases
like _rc1.
function vnum(vstring) {
var v = vstring.replace(/_.*|\./g, '');
v = parseInt(v + '0'.times(4-v.length));
return vstring.indexOf('_') -1 ? v-1 : v;
}
vnum('1.6.0') vnum('1.6.0_rc1') //- true
vnum('1.6.0') //-
I'll re-read your response again later, but at first glance it looks like a
long-winded way of saying no... :)
Yes there might be a better/more complete possibility, and someone might do
it in the future, but this patch looks better than what we have, and exists
now. That seems like a good thing.
What's your timeframe for finishing this? Will its API change much?
I started doing screencasts of how to use unittest today for peepcode.
If this patch is not useful, then it suggests the current
Event.simulateMouse code should be removed as part of the refactoring. Force
people to go looking