Hey, Robert, Robert Bocchino <bocch...@icloud.com> wrote: |> ..I agree with Betrand: it would be better to understand the code |> paths as such. | |I definitely agree, although as I said to Bertrand, I think \ |the first goal should be to get system tests in place. | |> I personally would be happy if there would be input <=> expected |> output tests available that could be driven by make(1) / sh(1) |> / awk(1). |> But having input <=> expected output datasets available at all |> would be just plain fantastic, especially if under GPL2 or ISC or |> another really free license! | |I agree!
Great :) --steffen
