On 14 August 2012 15:38, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 15:36, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why both testPrefFalse and testTokenishFalse (and both testPrefTrue
>>> and testTokenishTrue) if they both do the same thing?
>>> (testPref(True|False) are in the image now, so unless there's good
>>> reason, I don't see why we can't just remove testTokenish(True|False)
>>> from the above.
>>>
>>> Nit: I'd like testPref(True|False) categorised.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, +1 from me.
>>
>> I renamed them.
>
> *cough*. Frank, the '-' lines are lines that are removed, and the '+'
> lines are lines that are added. Right. Moving swiftly along...
>
>> The new tests are related to selector precedence, so I
>> wanted the tokenish tests to have that word in their selectors. The
>> new versions are categorized too!
>
> Now that my eyes have seen the light, consider this an unqualified +1 then.

Does this need updating? testP2LeadingUnderscore and
testP2SingleUnderscore fail because #_+ and #'_' have precedence 1
instead of the expected 2. (This relates to your conversation with
Juan, IIRC, on whether or not $_ can form part of a binary selector.)

frank

> frank
>
>> Colin
>>