Hi nicolas
I do not know what are < expr: (foo) results: bar > may be this is
even me that tried something (shame on me)
but I think that we should clean them.
Now I use "foo >>> bar" because we can have non literal and we will
start to build tools based on them.
I would like to clean the proliferation of pragmas too.
Stef
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Nicolas Cellier
<
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I encountered some annotations in the form:
>
> < expr: (foo) result: bar >
>
> and some meta comments of the form:
>
> " foo >>> bar "
>
> I think both are aimed at providing examples of method usage for
> documentation, non regression testing, etc...
>
> I note that the former is requiring a literal result, which is quite
> limiting (1/3) is not a literal for example, 0@0 neither...
> IMO it should be extended for handling any valid expression.
> But that still makes two different ways of expressing the same intent. So
> what's the canonical one?
Locked
