From: Austin Ziegler <Austin.Ziegler@...>
Date: 2004-06-15T00:14:08+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.com]:
> When you're given no choice, as far as you're concerned as a
> library user, they're run in an arbitrary order. [...]

This is a different claim than you made initially.

> As far as I'm concerned, the order that tests are run is a black
> box.

As they should be. Tests should be independent of one another and
not depend on any particular ordering.

Quite honestly, I see no compelling reason to use cs/Battery over
Test::Unit, as cs/Battery does not offer the rich set of assertions
that Test::Unit does. IMO, a better alternative would have been to
modify Test::Unit to support (1) alternative outputters (much like
CppUnit does) and (2) alternative ordering mechanisms.

-austin
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com