Message-ID:  <E0wkStL-0001ia-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 1997 17:19:51 -0000." 
              <199707041528.RAA13894@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Date:         Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:20:36 +0100
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals)
Status: R

Michel Lavaud writes:

> > In my view, a project to construct a test suite for every package on
> > CTAN is doomed to failure.  (For some reason, my fingers kept wanting
> > to type `dodo' where I meant `doomed' ;-)
>
> My proposal was not to construct a test suite for every package.
> It was: IF somebody is able to give an opinion on one given package,
> then he has written a test file (otherwise, could he have any
> opinion?).

I'm readily capable of giving opinions on many packages I've used, but
I'm not about to give away my (often private) documents that
constitute the only tests I've made of them.

> So, instead of giving an opinion, rather provide the test
> file. Or,  if he is enthusiast about it, maybe a demo file that
> illustrates some useful aspects of the package?

I would far rather have an informed opinion than a `test program'.
Frankly, I don't know many people who _do_ produce test programs in
the course of deciding that a package is a `good thing': I certainly
don't -- I read the source (if I have time) and then start
constructing my document that uses it.

I really do not believe that an exercise to produce test suites/demo
programs for packages is effort well spent.

Robin F