James Kanze wrote:
> On Jun 30, 1:21 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> James Kanze wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 9:35 am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> James Kanze wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> Where we
>>> disagree is that you seem to consider the unit tests a form of
>>> being "written down", whereas I consider them code, just like
>>> the rest---I don't know how to write a unit test until I have
>>> some idea what is to be tested, i.e. what the unit shoud do.
>>> And IMHO, I don't know that until it is written down.
>
>> Not really, the written down will be some form of requirement, be that a
>> clause in a traditional requirements specification, or an XP style user
>> story. Given a requirement, my view of TDD is that it's another form of
>> functional decomposition. You know what your end gaol is, you know the
>> steps to take you there and you follow them. The smaller those steps,
>> the better.
>
> (I presume you mean "your end goal", but it's an interesting
> Freudian slip:-).

It was wasn't it

> Except that you're probably American, and
> would have written jail, and not gaol.)
>
Hey, no need for insults! I'd have thought my spelling and timezone
would be enough of a hint.

I'll address the rest of the post later today when I've dug up some
unencumbered examples.

--
Ian Collins.