On Feb 17, 2013, at 19:48 , Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> For a number of reasons, Clownfish needs an immutable string type, which I
> think should be named Clownfish::String. CharBuf would become a mutable
> subclass of String (and would be significantly rarer than it is now).
Oh, I'd love to help working on this. One thing I don't like about the current
CharBuf implementation is that the way to iterate through strings is rather
limiting. The highlighter code in particular could benefit from a few changes.
> How about CSTR_EQ for C strings and STR_EQ for CharBufs (and eventually,
> Clownfish::Strings)?
>
> IMO, claiming primacy for CharBufs over C strings is already justified based
> on stats:
>
> $ grep -pir "cb_equals\b" core/Lucy/Test/ | wc -l
> 58
> $ grep -pir "cb_equals_str\b" core/Lucy/Test/ | wc -l
> 42
> $ grep -pir "str_eq\b" core/Lucy/Test/ | wc -l
> 3
>
> Or alternatively, can we punt and define the three test macros you enumerate
> above in Lucy::Test but not Clownfish::Test?
+1 for punting the decision, then.
> I'd thought the printf-style would have been taken advantage of more often,
> but on inspection I think there were 4 usages total between the Charmonizer
> test suite and the Lucy test suite. I'm a little surprised that you actually
> used it more in CFC's tests.
That's interesting. I used the printf style about 35 times in the CFC tests:
$ grep '%' clownfish/compiler/src/CFCTest[A-Z]*.c |grep -v sprintf |wc -l
35
It's probably due to the nature of the CFC tests where a lot of stuff is tested
in 'for' loops.
> Hmm, I hope the give-and-take of consensus building hasn't been too
> demotivating. :\
No, not at all.
> If it's just coding fatigue, though, then congratulations on
> getting a huge amount done before burning out. I'm happy to do some work on
> this area, and we might be able to queue up some easy issues as well for
> newcomers looking to get involved.
Refactoring and porting tests is simply boring stuff and I have done a lot of
that lately.
> We might consider looking to xUnit once again for inspiration and
> encapsulating the list of TestBatches within a TestSuite -- but that's
> something we could tackle down the road.
OK, then I continue the work I started in 'clownfish-test-v2'.
To recap, there seems to be consensus on the following items:
* Use the following macros locally in the Lucy tests:
* OK
* INT_EQ
* FLOAT_EQ
* STR_EQ
* CB_EQ
* CB_EQ_STR
* Store the current test batch in a global variable so we can
do away with the first macro argument.
WRT the printf-style messages, I'd simply keep them.
Nick
