On 01/18/2015 10:02 PM, Peter Broadbery wrote: > Looks interesting - I was doing something similar in the aldor code > base, but haven't got very far.. The idea was that the SpadUnit type > (or Assert, as it is known in the aldor library) would have > conditionals to include things like assertNotZero, > assertGreaterThan',etc as the target type allowed.
In fact, I find assertNotZero and friends as conditionals a bit too much. What would you gain from assertGreaterThan(x, y) in contrast to assertTrue(x > y) ? Perhaps something like being able to print x and y in case of failure? Maybe a more universal idea would be to have assertTrue: ((T, T) -> Boolean, T, T) -> Void where the above could then be called via assertTrue(>, x, y) I somehow don't like all different the assert... functions, because nobody remembers all of them anyway. > I think my next extension would be something that would collect > errors, rather than throwing an immediate exception (no time to work > on it at the moment though). OK, that would probably make it independent of the automake machinery. But, I somehow fear that it would be a bit harder to have parallel tests. And for FriCAS one never knows how to capture a certain (maybe unknown) exception or crash. Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
