"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the "golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and > out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on > perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes > verification off to outside tools (e.g. perl5). I realize they can be > fragile, but at least for the moment, we can't rely on a complete > perl6 Test::Foo infrastructure, and I think that in general, we > _shouldn't_ require such a thing for the very basic tests. Because if we > do, and something basic is broken, all the tests will break because of it, > making the bug-hunter's job much more difficult.
I see where you are coming from ... but is the IO infrastructure really the most primitive thing to rely on? It may be at the moment; but I expect that it will become more complex. C<print> may be a built-in right now; but it should probably move to a module later. If we can't rely on C<assert(0)> to kill a test (and C<assert(1) not to>; then things are pretty badly broken (assuming that C<assert> exists). If we are going to pick a very small subset on which almost all tests will depend ... isn't it better to pick the test-infrastructure itself to be that dependency; rather that some arbitrary module (like IO). Dave.
