Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Mark Bainter <mbainter-smgl AT trampledstones.com>]

Eric Sandall [eric AT sandall.us] wrote:
> Instead of a DETAILS value, perhaps another, separate, file would work
> better, e.g. <spell>/QA.
>
> This way you can write complex scripts for testing, if needed, without
> exploding DETAILS.

Well, my thought was that the DETAILS value would just point to
something to run that would do the QA -- figuring that might be quicker
and easier to merge into sorcery.  (I'm not familiar enough with it to
say either way).

A standardized file such as you suggested would be even better IMO, if
the difficulty of supporting it isn't more costly than the perceived
value.

--