I was initially skeptical about Rust's convention of having tests in the same file as the actual code, but it seems to be working out well.
-
Oh, you wouldn't, but the fact it's hard at the moment is sort of the point: If the tests aren't in sync with your main repo, then some of them would just fail (at compile time). You would update them if/when you care enough to do so, but no requirement for it to be synchronous.
By the way, everything I'm saying about tests could be applied to documentation too. It's maybe more understandable for docs.
-
-
Docs are different in that they're often not mechanically checked and also timeless (or exist on a different timeline than the code, e.g. by also pointing out beta or deprecated features).
-
I don't think docs should timeless... how much developer time gets wasted because nobody can change docs of buggy code to warn people of the bugs?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.