>From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought that
that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's tests.

So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see in std.date, not dmd.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:45:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought that
> that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's tests.
> 
> So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see in std.date, not dmd.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

Primarily historical accident of how/where walter evolved things. There's little value in removing tests that work since there's little guarantee (without careful evaluation) that there actually are duplicate tests elsewhere.  As code is rearranged and deprecated, removing worthless parts is worth doing.

btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
makes them extra wordy and longer than n
ecessary.  Feels like some bad
training from academia.

Shrug,
Brad

I think that the dmd tests depends on phobos should move to.

Kenji Hara

2011/8/15 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:
> From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought that that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's tests.
>
> So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see in std.date, not dmd.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>

On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:56:30 Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:45:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought that>>
> > that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's tests.
> > 
> > So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see in std.date, not dmd.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Primarily historical accident of how/where walter evolved things. There's little value in removing tests that work since there's little guarantee (without careful evaluation) that there actually are duplicate tests elsewhere.  As code is rearranged and deprecated, removing worthless parts is worth doing.
> 
> btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
> makes them extra wordy and longer than n
> ecessary.  Feels like some bad
> training from academia.

It probably is. For essays and the like, that's definitely what you're supposed to do. It doesn't work as well in smaller communications like e-mail, but I still end up repeating the key points at the end or it just feels off to me.

In any case, it sounds like runnable/testdate.d should just be removed then.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 8/14/11 2:56 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
> makes them extra wordy and longer than n
> ecessary.  Feels like some bad
> training from academia.

I've developed an entire speed reading technique for Jonathan's emails :o).

Andrei

On 8/14/2011 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:56:30 Brad Roberts wrote:
>> btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
>> makes them extra wordy and longer than n
>> ecessary.  Feels like some bad
>> training from academia.
> 
> It probably is. For essays and the like, that's definitely what you're supposed to do. It doesn't work as well in smaller communications like e-mail, but I still end up repeating the key points at the end or it just feels off to me.
> 
> In any case, it sounds like runnable/testdate.d should just be removed then.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

If you're trying to teach someone something, and it's a long enough work, yes.  But for emails, it feels like being beaten upside the head repeatedly.  As if we you're trying to force us to accept your point (whatever it is, this email was just a really good illustration of it since it was tiny).  Or like a whiny kid asking Why? Why? Why?

Sorry for being blunter than I'd like to have been.. hard to figure out how to ask questions like this politely.

Later,
Brad

Changing tests is dangerous.  Without going back to the original code to make sure the original bug is still caught and tested for by the moved code or the altered to be a even more reduced test case, there's a real risk of a reduction in the quality of the test suite.  I'd personally LOVE it if not a single phobos import existed in any of the dmd test suite.  Possibly even true for druntime imports in the dmd test suite.  However, it's not clear that the benefits justify the risk.

On 8/14/2011 12:58 PM, kenji hara wrote:
> I think that the dmd tests depends on phobos should move to.
> 
> Kenji Hara
> 
> 2011/8/15 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:
>> From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought that that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's tests.
>>
>> So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see in std.date, not dmd.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________

On Sunday, August 14, 2011 13:11:29 Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 8/14/2011 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:56:30 Brad Roberts wrote:
> >> btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
> >> makes them extra wordy and longer than n
> >> ecessary.  Feels like some bad
> >> training from academia.
> > 
> > It probably is. For essays and the like, that's definitely what you're supposed to do. It doesn't work as well in smaller communications like e-mail, but I still end up repeating the key points at the end or it just feels off to me.
> > 
> > In any case, it sounds like runnable/testdate.d should just be removed then.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> If you're trying to teach someone something, and it's a long enough work, yes.  But for emails, it feels like being beaten upside the head repeatedly.  As if we you're trying to force us to accept your point (whatever it is, this email was just a really good illustration of it since it was tiny).  Or like a whiny kid asking Why? Why? Why?
> 
> Sorry for being blunter than I'd like to have been.. hard to figure out how to ask questions like this politely.

Well, I'm certainly not trying to be rude at all or shove my point down anyone's throat, and I certainly understand that you weren't trying to be rude. I guess that I should try to relearn how to write out arguments in e- mails such that I don't repeat myself as much, though that'll probably take time.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sunday, August 14, 2011 15:03:07 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 8/14/11 2:56 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> > btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
> > makes them extra wordy and longer than n
> > ecessary.  Feels like some bad
> > training from academia.
> 
> I've developed an entire speed reading technique for Jonathan's emails :o).

LOL. I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. I guess that I'll have to work on figuring out how to better write e-mails.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 8/14/2011 2:25 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 15:03:07 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 8/14/11 2:56 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>>> btw, why do you repeat your self so much in most of your emails?  It
>>> makes them extra wordy and longer than n
>>> ecessary.  Feels like some bad
>>> training from academia.
>> I've developed an entire speed reading technique for Jonathan's emails :o).
> LOL. I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. I guess that I'll have to work on figuring out how to better write e-mails.
>
>


I've noticed it too, so I'd take it as a bit of friendly advice like I'd tell my friend if his belt missed a loop in the back!