On 27/02/2013 11:13 a.m., Kinkie wrote:
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've applied it to me checkout of stringng and am hitting build errors.
Will see what I can do about that and post an update hopefully later today..
... unless you are able to post one Alex?
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.
Either way. Lets see what our availablility permits to happen.
Alex, thank you very much for taking the time to work on this and
carry it so far.
Ditto.
Ams
