On 06/20/2012 12:12 PM, 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.) Well, in general you don't want to use *only* not refs. :) But if there's an obvious way to fail (such as not supporting the feature)--particularly if the reference is likely to fail in the same way--that's a good candidate for a not ref. Also dbaron++ :) ~fantasaiReceived on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 21:48:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:18 UTC