On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Stefan Schmiedl <s...@xss.de> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:27:35 -0600 > Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Schmiedl <s...@xss.de> wrote: >> > >> > Are there specific reasons or situations when using >> > >> > (require test-engine/racket-tests) >> > >> > is "superior" to using the test framework provided in >> > >> > (require rackunit) ? >> >> No apriori reason, no. The two evolved independently, >> test-engine/racket-tests was originally designed as part of the >> teaching languages and so makes design decisions that are better >> suited there (specifically for showing the results of test case >> failures). rackunit was designed for the full languages and I believe >> it has more features for putting tests together into test suites and >> support for adding your own kind of test cases and extending existing >> ones. >> >> And there is also a third unit test framework that Eli wrote that >> takes the position that it should be minimal, punting things like test >> suites into Racket itself (by using functions, say). I'm not sure if >> that last one is included in the documentation. > > I went and looked around a bit. Is this what you're referring to? > > (require tests/eli-tester) > > (test > #t > (< 1 2) > (+ 1 2) => 3 > (quotient/remainder 10 3) => (values 3 1) > (car '()) =error> "expects argument of type") > > Very compact and avoids the problem of "what comes first" that I usually > have with other frameworks :-)
Yes, that's the one, although Eli has promised that the first and second subexpressions in the above won't be valid syntax in a hopefully soon-to-come revision. (The problem being that if you forget to put an => in, then you turn one failing test case into two passing ones.) Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
