Re: patch - tests in bitfcns

[John W. Eaton]

On 15-Jul-2009, John W. Eaton wrote:

| On 15-Jul-2009, Robert T. Short wrote:
| 
| | Thanks.  My bugs are better than octave bugs.  Must have done something 
| | dumb in the translation back from MATLAB to octave.  I am still working 
| | on automating the whole process, so I suppose glitches are inevitable.
| 
| It probably depends on how closely related the tests are.  For
| example, do all of the calls to assert from the first test block in
| conv.m test the same thing, or are they really testing differennt
| things?  If they are testing different things, then maybe they should
| be separate tests?  I'm not sure what is best.

Oops, this reply was really intended for the other thread in response
to the question about whether separate tests are better.

jwe