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