At 12:53 AM +0900 7/5/08, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
>Igal Koshevoy wrote:
>> Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
>>> Ruby based program to check ruby itself?  Does that really reliable?
>>>  
>> I think so. Stephen's RubyBuild can build a Ruby interpreter and my
>> RubyCheck can run a battery of tests against it. If either of these
>> simple Ruby programs fails, there's something wrong with the
>> interpreter, which is what we're trying to catch anyway. Is this
>> reasonable or is there a need for a shell-based solution?
>
>If they fail Ruby is insane.  But their *not* failing do not always
>result to ruby's sanity I think.  Am I wrong?

I think as long as there are several forms of test frameworks the likelyhood of running all the tests and having a positive result when the fault still exists AND is being tested for is extremely small.