On Wednesday 2012-06-20 20:12 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > On 20/06/12 19:03, fantasai wrote: > >Not refs make this relatively easy for many tests. > > But in general we don't want to use not refs, as they don't test > whether you get something expected, just that you don't get one > thing. (They have near-∞ passing conditions, not 1.) I think the idea was that the *reference* would have a negative reference. So you'd have an assertion: test == reference != not-reference where not-reference would be the same as reference except with the feature in question removed. For example: test: transform: rotate(45deg) reference: transform: matrix(...) not-reference: no transform -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 19:38:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:18 UTC