3 ms·
Perhaps they should add RubySpec then come back with those numbers. IIRC, there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 assertions in there and growing every
by jeremymcanally 18y ago
Perhaps they should add RubySpec then come back with those numbers. IIRC, there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 assertions in there and growing everyday.
Unlike Perl, Ruby has elected to make these specs an open community process usable across all implementations. Oops.
- wolverian 18y agoDoes the regular Ruby use RubySpec when you run "make test" or such? Perl 6 does separate the specification from the implementations.
- AndrewO 18y agoYes. http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/Makefile.in http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/Makefile.in Find "test-rubyspec". It even `git clone`s rubyspec if you ask it to (update-rubyspec).
- wolverian 18y agoThanks, good to know.
- AndrewO 18y agoNow, granted early 1.8's tests were sparse. RubySpec is a by-product of the alternative implementations and a couple of test attempts (http://blog.headius.com/2008/05/rubyspec-bringing-ruby-test-suites.html http://blog.headius.com/2008/05/rubyspec-bringing-ruby-test-...). A lot of developers continue to use MRI 1.8 despite 1.9.1 being out due to API changes. So you could still make the case that the main interpreter being used was at one point not well tested. However, forward progress in the language is tested, so there's nothing really to be remedied.