<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Brent Pinkney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent@zamail.co.za">brent@zamail.co.za</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
It is not simpler to just wrap the test in #valueWithin:OnTimeout: ?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You mean in the body of the method itself? If so, then this doesn't seem simpler or better to me.</div><div>
<br></div><div>a) the code of the test is harder to read because its indented within a valueWithin:OnTimeout:.</div><div><br></div><div>b) if I wanted to run the test without a timeout I couldn't because putting the #valueWithin:OnTimeout: couples the running of the test with the timeout.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
In that case the entire test runner can be edited by the user, it has a gui, to set the timeout ?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't understand this. Why can't one edit the timeout in the method tag just as easily as if it were in the body of the method? I guess I'm not understanding where and how you're suggesting do the wrapping. Can you be more exact; assume I'm clueless (not a bad assumption in my case)?</div>
<div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Eliot</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Brent<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>