[Imps] Test cases for parsing spec
rubys at intertwingly.net
Thu Dec 7 13:53:08 PST 2006
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> This may sound like bikeshedding, but that's not the simplest thing that
> could possibly work.
While that's a fair statement, I do believe that James's previous
statement (namely "since it can be parsed easily, we will be able to
convert it to a better format in the future.") very much applies here.
My instinct is that having each test specify the full set of output
tokens is both a burden and a maintenance headache, James's opinion is
clearly otherwise; neither one of us is sure, but in the end the data
will speak for itself. Similarly, perhaps it would be easier if each
test was separate (it certainly makes it easier to run exactly one
test), of perhaps that's not important.
And, if you recall, I also previously voted against 'noise characters',
of which the current syntax has many.
All in all, I'd suggest that we let James go for a few days and the
at least), converting to a new syntax should only take minutes.
- Sam Ruby
More information about the Implementors