From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-10-19T06:57:09+09:00
Subject: Re: documentation as source

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:09:22AM +0900, Massimiliano Mirra - bard wrote:
> Eivind Eklund <eeklund@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Could people (excepting Nathaniel) that is likely to use the proposed
> > syntax please speak up?  (If there's a lot of people that would use
> > it, I'm probably wrong.)
> 
> I'm for any syntax that favours a quick code-test-code cycle.
> 
> With `quick' I don't mean `edit test file, save test file, switch to
> class file, edit class file, save test file, switch to shell, run
> tests', and an `extract parts of the test file' somewhere in between
> certainly doesn't make it quicker.

That's not really the case because...

> By `quick' I mean `edit test part, edit class part, run tests'.
> Currently I do this by writing tests at the end of a class file,
> wrapped in a:
> 
>   if __FILE__ == $0 or (defined? $TESTING and $TESTING == true)
>      require "test/unit"
       require "text-extract"
	   Extracter.process(__FILE__)
>      ...
>   end
>   
> Just hitting C-c-c in Emacs at any given time will run the current
> class's tests.

And it really is quicker *g*, for the code examples will not be parsed 
normally.

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com