On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> I think we have been talking at cross-purposes here a bit. I am thinking the
> improved version will be very similar to this with better coverage.
>
> So, in the interest of progress I'm going to say +1 if kinkie wants to
> absorb it and fix the things it finds, and I can point out more improvements
> to do _on top_ of this to massage it towards that better coverage.
Hi,
Day-job is absorbing all of my time and energies currently, so I
haven't had the time to read the patch yet.
Short story, I'll incorporate it.
I believe it shouldn't replace the current hand-crafted tests, but
complement them. While the purpose of automated and manually-crafted
tests is largely overlapping, it is not completely so.
Hand-crafted is better than automated as an easily-readable example
and documentation; automated can give better coverage, can help with
corner cases such as junk/malicious input and (unless we get too
carried away) trades CPU time at build/test for developer time. The
former we have plenty of, the latter we should spare whenever
possible.
Amos, +1 for the "on top" coverage improvements; your choice whether
to give them now wait until the first round is done.
Alex, thank you very much for taking the time to work on this and
carry it so far.
--
/kinkie
