STINNER Victor added the comment: "This may be opening a can of worms, but I wonder if what we should really do is re-engineer regrtest from the ground up,"
It's not a full reengineering. My patch takes the current code and split it into smaller files. It's not a new implementation or anything like that. "keeping the existing regrtest around until we are satisfied with its replacement..." why are you saying "replacement"? Replaced by what? "(I've used --single, but it's been a long time, and I think it may have only been when I was testing regrtest after modifying it...)" You can propose to remove this option if you think that it's useless. I don't want to touch options, I don't know how regrtest is used, and regrtest works right? (If it works, don't touch it :-)) "I haven't looked at Victor's code to see if I like his re-engineering, but I'm really talking about starting the re-engineering from the API, and only then thinking about the code to implement it." Sorry, but writing a new regrtest project is a full new project. Please open a new issue if you want to invest time on that. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25220> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
