Re: [Caml-list] Re: Preferred layout for new packages

[rixed@happyleptic.org]

-[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:59:38AM +0100, Dawid Toton ]----
> On 11/15/2012 10:20 AM, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:
> >-[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:58AM -0800, vincent.hugot@gmail.com ]----
> >>I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near the
> >>function, they serve as short specifications, and being comments, they don't
> >>alter the compilation process in the least.
> >
> >The only drawback I saw is that adding or modifying a test triggers the
> >recompilation of the whole unit when using makefiles (since the file changed).
> >I wonder if there exist a tool that's able to find out that since only comments
> >where changed the module need not be recompiled. Maybe omake can do this ?
> >
> 
> You usually want correct line numbers to be preserved in the
> executable for e.g. assertion failures. So, in general, it's not
> possible to save time in the way you describe unless the compiler
> itself works in an incremental manner.
> Dawid

Good catch. Thank you.