This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
RE: RFC: Increment and Decrement (was Re: GDL Notice: ArithmeticOperators / Quasi-Formulae)
- From: "Erik Jessen" <ejessen at adelphia dot net>
- To: "'Jim Kingdon'" <kingdon at panix dot com>,<mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- Cc: <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:27:56 -0700
- Subject: RE: RFC: Increment and Decrement (was Re: GDL Notice: ArithmeticOperators / Quasi-Formulae)
I sure like getting the basics well-tested.
It's amazing how many simple bugs are found, even in stable code that's
been in use for years.
Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com
[mailto:xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Jim Kingdon
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:02 PM
To: mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu
Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Increment and Decrement (was Re: GDL Notice:
ArithmeticOperators / Quasi-Formulae)
> As it turns out, my concern was somewhat justified, after I made the
> horrific discovery this evening that I had broken negative number
> tokenization a few days ago. I have now fixed this, _but it shows that
> even the simplest hacks can produce big bugs.
That's what you get for not writing any tests :-).
Unlike many parts of xconq, writing autotest-style tests for GDL parsing
is really easy.
I suppose if I feel like writing some xconq tests, I could start with
these, rather than proceeding directly to the nastier, harder to test
things like "make sure the AI knows how to use a transport".