Anders Hovmöller
Anders Hovmöller
> Yes, the output in this case is suboptimal but there's honestly no way to generally format these situations better in general. I would suggest that there is, and that...
The reference documentation has this text: "Basically the test is split up by using the // => comments. Each chunk is executed independently, and the test may be paused at...
Yea, that's the one I mean. It's not that it's incorrect per se, the example is "correct", it's just super unhelpful! The wait() call can be removed and it's still...
The discussion on issue #17 got a little bit off track and now has a lot to do with this ticket :P
@ianb yea, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry I didn't manage to get that point across before :)
hmm... and I guess you mean "the weird nature of wait()"?
How about tests that SHOULD have cross-dependencies? How would you mark up dependent blocks?
A way to wait at some point for the completion of an event would be pretty reasonable I think. It's a bit unfortunate that the "wait" function currently doesn't actually...
Hmm.. maybe to go with the current philosophy instead of "waitForCompletions();" it should be "// = WAIT" or "// = RESULTS" and then check the results after that. It would...
Oh, I didn't know that a dummy `// =>` was enough to make the wait happen, I was under the impression you had to have a new section. Well, I...