On Sep 30, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Ryan Davis wrote:

> I think the main thing I've been learning from you and Dave is that  
> your (collective) perception of miniunit is vastly different than  
> mine.
>
> miniunit, in my mind, doesn't "masquerade" as test/unit... at least,  
> no more than any duck typing "masquerades" as the thing it is being  
> used as. It IS test/unit's mutated child and can be used in place of  
> test/unit... I just think of it as test/unit 2.0... it maintains  
> full backwards compatibility, for now, and later the deprecated  
> stuff will drop off, making it even lighter/better/happier.

Sorry, "masquerade" carried more of a pejorative connotation than I  
intended.  I meant nothing more than "Duck Typing" at a library level.

I agreed with Dave ... the deprecated line noise is *highly*  
annoying.  Especially in a project that I intend to remain compatible  
with test/unit (for the moment at least).

Can we:

(a) Get a way of switching off the deprecation notices (perhaps a  
command line switch),

... or ...

(b) Reduce the deprecation notices to a single notice.  I'm thinking  
that a notice after all the tests have run saying something along the  
lines of "the following deprecated methods have been used ..." would  
convey the same information but not make the test output so visually  
appalling.

Thanks for taking the burden of crafting a lighter, faster test  
framework.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich
-- jim.weirich / gmail.com