|
From: Edward Z. Y. <edw...@th...> - 2008-12-21 18:32:11
|
Marcus Baker wrote: > Which is why they are still there :). Heh. :-) > They are "deprecated" not as a note to us, but to others outside the > core that extend the tool. Eventually they will be refactored out of > existance. It occurs to me, then, that it might be a good idea to throw some sort of userland error so those people who don't actually source-dive will get a warning about this behavior (of course, that means our code that uses it will also throw errors; not sure what do to do here--maybe an optional parameter that turns off the error? An isomorphic function that doesn't have the error?) > If we move over to one failure per test (as per most of the xUnit > systems) then an explicit pass() is pointless. A pass is just the > absence of failures in a test method. We are a long way from removing it > of course, but we have to signal it's demise early, as it's so entrenched. Ok, so this is a long term goal. > Does that make sense? Yep. Does that mean we should consider the "Remove deprecated functions" task done for now? Cheers, Edward |