Re: Generating C# from Java (Was: fit, nfit, et al?)

On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 12:43  PM, Charlie Poole wrote:

> Do all implementations work with exactly the same tables, as the Java
> and C# versions do?

The goal is that if test documents required modification when 
converting from one language to another, that the modifications would 
seem natural given the language and/or environment, not pointless and 
due to carelessness of the framework implementors.

For example, the package names that appear in tables trace their roots 
to java package names and preserve the java syntax. When this was 
discussed on this list we considered abandoning package names and 
searching some sort of "package path" instead. It was pointed out that 
an implementation could always do this anyway and that having the 
package names in the dot syntax was as good as any other syntax for 
"advisory" package names.

I could easily imagine a whole page of framework acceptance tests (fat) 
that discussed the conclusions of that conversation.

I've found it convenient to write fixtures as inner classes and 
discovered that this just worked with the java implementation using the 
$ notation. I could easily imagine someone converting my tests to some 
environment without inner classes having to edit those tests and cook 
up some alternative to inner classes. This alone is probably reason for 
me to stop using inner classes. I only did it to see what it was like.


--
Ward Cunningham
503-245-5633 v	mailto:[email protected]
503-246-5587 f	http://c2.com