Christopher Wright:
> For what it's worth, dunit supports this:
> tests["no expected exception"] = {};
> tests["fails if it doesn't throw"] = expectedException!(AssertError) = {
> assert(false); };
I don't understand that syntax.
>>4) I'd like to unittest nested functions too.<<
>That's not going to be easy.<
It's not too much important.
>This is interesting. It's not as flexible as dunit or D's unittest blocks --
>it'll complain about any user-visible changes to a function. It also looks
>like it'd be annoying to use, say, mock objects with it. I would have no use
>for doctests, but I think it's a neat hack.<
I use it every day and I find it very useful, but note it's not meant to
replace normal unittests (in Python for them you use the unittest module of the
std lib, or a system you can find online, like "nose"), it's mailing meant to
write "documentation tests", that is to write normal documentation that also
contains and shows some usage examples: with doctests you can be sure that
documentation never goes out of sync with the code, because it's documentation
that runs.
Bye,
bearophile
