From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rixed@happyleptic.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A8F57EE20
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:36:54 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=pra; client-ip=212.27.42.6;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=212.27.42.6;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@smtp6-g21.free.fr) identity=helo;
  client-ip=212.27.42.6;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@smtp6-g21.free.fr";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmMCAG2MpFDUGyoGlGdsb2JhbABEhh28HwQEgQUjAQEBAQkLEhQDJIIeAQEEASNbCwsaAiYCAlcuh3AKqRuSX4EiixCDAIIUgRMDm2eNSA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,254,1352070000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="162524509"
Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.6])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 07:36:53 +0100
Received: from [10.3.128.124] (unknown [78.250.143.118])
	by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C96B82241
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:36:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Cedric Cellier <rixed@happyleptic.org>
Reply-To: Cedric Cellier <rixed@happyleptic.org>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Mailer: Modest 3.2
References: <20121114124355.7e8ca762@xivilization.net>
	 <50A3ADC1.5090402@gmail.com>  <20121114180012.68bf06df@xivilization.net>
In-Reply-To: <20121114180012.68bf06df@xivilization.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-ID: <1352961418.10207.7.camel@Nokia-N900>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:36:59 +0100
Message-Id: <1352961419.10207.8.camel@Nokia-N900>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

> But having the test code in a comment
> seems ugly to me. Maybe there could be some CamlP4 hack to exclude it
> on normal compilation?

Since you mentioned python, a culture where
unit tests are routinely written in
comments, Im surprised by your opinion.
Do you think all tests in comments are ugly or is there something specific to batteries tests
that make these ugly?