Re: nunit-developer Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16

> Yep, but as Charlie pointed out in his postings, it's not as simple a change
> to NUnit as I was implying (the code change in this instance is simple, but
> the actual semantics of who should own what, which would change in my
> suggestion, is trickier).

I'm losing track of which point is being made here. :-)

>  I was away last weekend, so didn't get to look at any of this yet, but I'll
> have loads of time this weekend (my wife's away) to change the syntax of my
> add-in (and look at splitting it into two independent addins). I'm avoiding
> the Theory terminology for now, as I'm not sure I have a Theory (which seems
> to be another extensibility point in xUnit.net), but will probably have
> ParameterizedTestFixtures and ParameterizedTests, as you suggested :)

I'm actually in favor of the Theory terminology, but only if we also
do the Assume.That() semantics I proposed in the other posting. I
believe once you read the whole paper, you'll agree, but we'll have to
wait and see what you think after you read the paper.

-Kelly

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/