> I'm starting to wonder what the tests really test: the language definition, > or accidents of the implementation? It's good to test conformance to the language definition, but this is also a regression test for the implementation. The "accidents of the implementation" definitely need to be tested. E.g. if we decide that repr(s) uses \n rather than \012 or \x0a, this should be tested too. The language definition gives the implementer a choice here; but once the implementer has made a choice, it's good to have a test that tests that this choice is implemented correctly. Perhaps there should be several parts to the regression test, e.g. language conformance, library conformance, platform-specific features, and implementation conformance? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4