On 7/24/15 6:09 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 07/24/15 23:32, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 20:57:34 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
The difference is that right now the developer has to write a unit-test per
function that uses `hasPrefix`, otherwise the code might not even be verified
to compile. 100% unit-test coverage is not going to happen in practice, and
just like with docs, making things easier and reducing boilerplate to a minimum
would improve the situation dramatically.
But you see. This is exactly wrong attitude. Why on earth should we make life
easier for folks who don't bother to get 100% unit test coverage?
How exactly does making it harder to write tests translate into
having better coverage? Why is requiring the programmer to write
unnecessary, redundant, and potentially buggy tests preferable?
False choice. -- Andrei
