> Thanks! I did briefly consider testthat, based on reading [1], and > dismissed it because it seemed to be different without being better. > (I'm not saying it was worse, just it didn't appear to have any killer > reason to make it worth turning my back on the 10-15 years worth of > experience the software industry has with the xUnit approach.)
I wrote testthat because I didn't think the xUnit approach was a very good fit for R - it is very tightly tied to message passing OO conventions, and in R, there are more idiomatic ways of solving the same problems using lexical scoping, first class functions etc. I was also really annoyed the RUnit lacked the one feature that I think is absolutely crucial for unit testing: it doesn't produce coloured dots that show the progress of the tests ;) Hadley -- Assistant Professor Department of Statistics / Rice University http://had.co.nz/ _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
