I think we're over-complexifying the whole situation. Perhaps we should allow only one of these things to appear in the definitions buffer. We're talking about novice programmers. I don't expect them to use check-expect after semester 1 (or perhaps part of 2). I just don't think that this is a big deal. -- Matthias
On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > If I put two -above's in a row does that push past the previous -below? :) > > In all seriousness, this seems like a way for students to get confused > about what their programs are or aren't doing. It seems easy to lose > track of where the aboves and belows are. > > If I understand correctly, this is not a performance issue, but an > issue of keeping track of which test cases are the interesting ones > while working on one part of a program. That is, we want a mechanism > to focus in on a section of the program and its test cases. > > If that's correct, then I think we have two better routes to pursue: > > - multi-file programs > > - better support in the GUI for showing us only some of the test > results (perhaps something to focus in on test cases that test > specific functions or something like that). > > Robby > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> I see two sequences: >> >> -below ;; disables up to >> >> -above ;; here; disables up to -below and re-enables tests >> >> or >> >> -above ;; disables everything up to here and enables tests up to >> >> -below ;; here; disables tests below. >> >> Anything else? -- Matthias >> >> >> >> On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>> Those two seem like they can combine in strange ways. >>> >>> Robby >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> I can see adding both disable-tests-above and disable-tests-below. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote: >>>> >>>>> At Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:54:06 -0500, >>>>> Matthias Felleisen wrote: >>>>>> I propose >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. to remove the menu and its functionality >>>>>> 2. to add a macro disable-tests-below >>>>>> 3. and be prepared to add a macro enable-tests-below. >>>>> >>>>> `disable-tests-below' makes it easy to accidentally skip running tests >>>>> altogether. >>>>> >>>>> Consider this scenario: >>>>> - A student works on an assignment, one problem at a time. >>>>> - Once a problem is done, he doesn't touch the code anymore, and >>>>> wants to disable the tests. >>>>> - With `disable-tests-below', he needs to add it at the top of the >>>>> file, and to add `enable-tests-below' before the problem he's now >>>>> working on. >>>>> - If he forgets to add `enable-tests-below', no tests get run at all. >>>>> >>>>> `disable-tests-above' would accomodate this workflow better. If the >>>>> student forgets to move it as he solves problems, then more tests get >>>>> run. No problem. That sounds like a better default to me. >>>>> >>>>> However, I'm a bit uncomfortable with `disable-tests-above' affecting >>>>> the behavior of what comes before it. It may lead to confusing >>>>> situations. >>>>> >>>>> A region-based solution also sounds good. Especially since (I assume) >>>>> only a small number of tests are actually expensive. >>>>> >>>>> Vincent >>>> >>>> >> >> _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
