the interpretive nature of Tcl meant we had to not only test all codepaths and values, but also all types and combinations thereofZB I'm not sure: why the reason of that "also..." was "interpretive nature of Tcl"?SLB It sounds like they wanted a language with static type checking, so errors, such as passing a string to a function expecting a number, can be detected at compile time.ZB Such approach makes no sense to me. Why anybody should pass a string to a function expecting a number? "By mistake"? So he can pass a wrong number to that "function expecting a number" as well - and the test won't detect it. It can be detected at runtime - doing real test of functionality - when something goes wrong. But such way could be also tested programs written in TCL, and all the "passings a string..." etc.
Tcl also makes an appearance on the International Space Station