2011/4/4 Hardy Ferentschik :
> If I remember right we didn't initially have the additional 'test' level in
> the code.
> I was also a proponent of not having it, but I think the argument was that
> it helps
> to easier distinguish test from production classes. Obviously they are
> structurally
> se
2011/4/4 Emmanuel Bernard :
> What's you actual use case. This explicit separation is something I've always
> appreciated to limit "clever" package-level visibility usages.
>
> Let's discuss tomorrow on IRC
In preparation to IRC, the use case is what I'm discussing with Tom
Waterhouse in the par
What's you actual use case. This explicit separation is something I've always
appreciated to limit "clever" package-level visibility usages.
Let's discuss tomorrow on IRC
.
On 4 avr. 2011, at 21:43, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hi,
> it's sometimes useful from the test packages to be able to get
> p
If I remember right we didn't initially have the additional 'test' level
in the code.
I was also a proponent of not having it, but I think the argument was that
it helps
to easier distinguish test from production classes. Obviously they are
structurally
separated in different directories, but
