On Friday, May 23, 2014 2:13:00 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Looking at this, it occurs to me that since all the tests are just in the > test/runtests.jl file, and this is probably a pretty common case, maybe the > name of that file is a little unfortunate. It's a good name if there are a > ton of tests in lots of files and ways to run various subsets of them, but > it's probably pretty common, especially initially, for a package to just > have one test file like this. Calling it test/tests.jl might be better? >
Shorter is better, but I don't care all that much.
