> A situation where SUnit and all the tests are not necessarily loaded.

Hmm... maybe we might consider adding an SUnit-Core? Well, not sure it makes sense to have an image without SUnit. But then you might want to also strip, e.g., network support to shrink the image file a little bit more. :-)

Best,
Marcel
Am 24.10.2020 13:01:30 schrieb H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com>:
On 10/9/20, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On 10/9/20 4:53 PM, Thiede, Christoph wrote:
>>> Anyway, having it by default be the case that Workspaces'
>> code environments be TestCases seems very sensible to me.
>>
>> What do you mean by this? Such a TestCase receiver environment should
>> definitively be not the default, this would be very confusing!
>
> Oh interesting! What kind of confusion do you foresee? I had just
> imagined that the only visible-ish change would be availability of
> TestCase instance-side methods on the "self" in the Workspace.
>
>>> "Assertions [...] MUST BE LEFT ACTIVE IN
>>> PRODUCTION CODE


>> Are we on the same page now? :-)
>
> Yes, I think we are! :-) Thanks.
>
> Tony

I consider that assertions are useful to have in the production code
an an argument in favor of having

assert:equals:description:

implemented the class Object. A situation where SUnit and all the
tests are not necessarily loaded.

--Hannes

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20201026/6139df18/attachment.html>