 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's slightly bizarre when you build a new test framework, and have to
build a /second/ test framework to test the first one!
Also: Apparently "inception" now means "recursion". :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> It's slightly bizarre when you build a new test framework, and have to
> build a /second/ test framework to test the first one!
obviously you need to test your tests to make sure they will test ok.
> Also: Apparently "inception" now means "recursion". :-P
did you watch the movie, BTW?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-2-2012 12:14, Invisible wrote:
> It's slightly bizarre when you build a new test framework, and have to
> build a /second/ test framework to test the first one!
It is a pity you never read Goedel Escher Bach.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/2012 05:00 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> It's slightly bizarre when you build a new test framework, and have to
>> build a /second/ test framework to test the first one!
>
> obviously you need to test your tests to make sure they will test ok.
Yeah, well, it's a general-purpose testing library. So obviously I want
to make sure it works correctly. The daft thing is, there's no automated
way to do that; I built a big automated system that makes it generate
lots of test logs, and then I manually look at each one to check that
the test output matches the test spec.
>> Also: Apparently "inception" now means "recursion". :-P
>
> did you watch the movie, BTW?
Yeah. It wasn't as great as I had imagined.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/2012 09:18 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 8-2-2012 12:14, Invisible wrote:
>> It's slightly bizarre when you build a new test framework, and have to
>> build a /second/ test framework to test the first one!
>
> It is a pity you never read Goedel Escher Bach.
Never read /all/ of GEB. I read some of it, and eventually got so bored
that I couldn't be bothered to finish it. It's actually sitting a few
feet away from me right now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/2012 11:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Also: Apparently "inception" now means "recursion". :-P
Or possibly "meta". As in the new word "failception", which means
"meta-failure". :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-2-2012 10:19, Invisible wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 09:18 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 8-2-2012 12:14, Invisible wrote:
>>> It's slightly bizarre when you build a new test framework, and have to
>>> build a /second/ test framework to test the first one!
>>
>> It is a pity you never read Goedel Escher Bach.
>
> Never read /all/ of GEB. I read some of it, and eventually got so bored
> that I couldn't be bothered to finish it. It's actually sitting a few
> feet away from me right now...
Among the parts you did read is the Bithday Cantatatata? (I assume that
is what it is called, I only have a Dutch translation at hand)
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
