On Oct 26, 2:48 pm, ".Bill Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I applaud everyone who has volunteered to help write tests for
> Clojure. A good test suite not only catches problems but also helps
> beginners learn the language.
>
> Regarding the proposal in the previous post, I think we should be
> careful about drawing inferences between the use of random values and
> the resulting quality of the tests. In my experience, test developers
> often use random values when fixed, hard-coded values work just as
> well. I think it is more important to look for (and test) edge
> conditions than it is to pull values out of a bag. I also think using
> random values makes tests less reproducible.
>
> That's not to say there is never a time for randomization. I just
> think it can make tests unnecessarily complicated.
>
I agree that its very important for any tests to embody and
communicate the semantics of the thing under test. They serve as third-
party confirmation of the definition of the functions. As you say,
they should help beginners understand the intent of the function, and
help convince me that a failed test is something I should bother to
fix.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
