That would also work. Robby
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > 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
