Not to distract from what is undeniably a pretty cool thing, it's hard to even call these "games" as there's absolutely no decision making going on. I absolutely loathe games like these because you're not actually doing anything.
I'm not really sure what position you're taking but taking a rake can certainly change the legality of an activity; in California, playing poker in private is considered a social game and is legal, _except_ if party is taking a rake.
I'm not really arguing with your point, I'm correcting your incorrect description of what I'm saying.
To argue with your actual point: I don't really care about the overall context, actively disallowing tests in a codebase is a _bad decision_. Look how it worked out for them.
> it's time for you and I to bug out conversationally
I got the sense from your reply that some extra clarity would be beneficial.
> This is unnecessary. OP came out with "AUTHOR IS INSANE" even on the most generous of interpretations.
I did not actually call the author insane, I called their decision to explicitly disallow testing insane. It's an insane decision. I am not _literally_ calling the author insane.
A dictatorship? Are you being forced at gunpoint to talk to people?
Perhaps more unsurprisingly, at the mere suggestion that socializing is good for you (it demonstrably is https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11403199/), you went and wrote a comment that I can only imagine someone who is deeply unhappy would write.
I know what ECDSA is and if you brought it up in a random conversation unprompted I'd try to find your spaceship so I could escape the conversation on it.
I think people underestimate how pragmatic meta programming can be because there are some obvious downsides. Arguably one of things that made Rust so popular was its inclusion of procedural macros.
But beyond that the thing I don't understand about the modern hate towards macros is that they are simply very fun.