Eli Barzilay wrote at 02/13/2011 09:41 PM:
It currently shoots for (and will continue in the future) a very low readability
overhead -- that's the whole reason for the infixish `=>' syntax. [...] To put
this differently, I view tests as an important thing that lives in the api
neighborhood. So anything that requires looking at the documentation for casual
readers is as bad as writing the manual in hebrew and and handing out dictionaries.
I'm not so sure about the requirement "readability by casual readers of
the source without requiring looking at the documentation".
But if we do have that requirement, to me, it implies:
* Racket-idiomatic syntax (which usually means grouping parens, and no
infix keywords); and
* fairly self-explanatory human-readable identifiers (like using the
words like "equals", "eq", "result", "returns", "yields", "expect", and
"value", and not using more ambiguous or cryptic symbols like "=>").
Going back to that root requirement... I think that unit testing should
be so central to contemporary programming that we should just pick some
syntax that makes sense for practical development both large and small,
use it everywhere, and simply expect people who are looking at the
source to know what Racket unit tests look like. If we can do this
canonical test syntax sensibly, and the syntax is set up so that we can
plug in our own user interfaces for running the tests, I will convert
all my existing and new open source code to use this canonical syntax.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
