"warning no tests to run"

[Gavin Panella]

On 29 August 2013 19:25, roger peppe <roger.peppe at canonical.com> wrote:
> -gocheck.v does not in fact absorb an argument, but something we could
> do is barf if flag.NArg() > 0. I think that's a good plan actually - I can't
> think of any immediate down sides (we might need to fix some
> recursive tests though).

Ah. I made the false assumption that, because -gocheck.v=true is
valid, that it absorbs an argument, but I see that's by design.

Anyway, the flag.NArg() check sounds good; I'll give it a go.