6 hours ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
15 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
We've talked before about having a testing mode so that tests could
be written inline, but not run when the module is normally run. I've
attached a patch that adds a simple way of doing this.
racket/test gives you
-
I like the testing part, but am uneasy with the deploying part.
Unit testing is so commonplace, and sometimes you want to have unit
tests of private stuff within a module, without having to break up the
module to expose the private stuff for testing. So, in that very
common, almost universal
25 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Just one example: just like some people might have mode called
deploying or production, I might have particular modules that
have a run mode in which there are multiple implementations of the
same function, and at run time both the simple and the
On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
I feel lucky thing is not going to be a useful feature.
It can work nicely in cases where bindings are relatively unique (for
example, `get-impure-port'), but getting it to do the right thing for
common names (like `cons') will be challenging,
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests included,
as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the repl after loading the file
-- ... and from some
About a minute ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests
included, as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the repl
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
(2) things from libraries can be excluded from specific languages
because we know they won't run
That won't work right too... Should I list a whole bunch of
Four minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
(2) things from libraries can be excluded from specific languages
because we know they won't run
That won't work right too... Should I list a whole bunch of
modules for my language?
Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a slippery
slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase variable names... (By
convention, I use all-uppercase for
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a slippery
slope to a proliferation of
8 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a
slippery slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase variable names...
(By
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
Yes. But the problem is that `#%foo' names are intended to be things
that you don't write in end-user code, only if you implement
2011/6/28 Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu:
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests included,
as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Regardless of this, you're missing the main problem. If you're in
drracket (or in a racket repl), you won't get to `set-car!', unless
you explicitly search everything. But the problem is when the neabies
just points their browsers to
Apologies. I didn't understand your original message then, and all I understand
now is that I misunderstood it.
But I will say that I already organize my files according to Eli's style. I
have considered writing tests right below a function, but in the end I decided
that this wasn't any good
20 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
I was worried about situations where you had some code that had
module toplevel code that starts up a long running process that
shouldn't be run in test mode, so I wanted to cordon off that. I
wasn't imagining anything as complicated as what Neil or Eli seem
10 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Regardless of this, you're missing the main problem. If you're in
drracket (or in a racket repl), you won't get to `set-car!', unless
you explicitly search everything. But the problem is when
On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
10 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Regardless of this, you're missing the main problem. If you're in
drracket (or in a racket repl), you won't get to `set-car!', unless
you
Jay McCarthy wrote at 06/28/2011 10:52 AM:
My patch was supposed to address this by setting up a protocol for
code to be test only or not test (that's what I intended by
with-deploying.)
It was deploying in the name that I thought was problematic.
when-testing-mode and unless-testing-mode,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
An hour ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
Yes. But the
I am too buried in syntax-certificate work at the moment to follow
along reply properly, but for what it's worth, I have a very different
proposal in mind: a single file can have multiple loadable things
(maybe modulets), and a program `main' should be one of those
loadable things --- not an
In certain places, I know that we're trying to be careful to minimize
'require's that occur as part of DrRacket startup. Is 'rackunit' something
we're trying to avoid? Specifically, I have old unit tests in
collects/stepper/private/shared.rkt that I'd like to revive as rackunit tests.
John
22 matches
Mail list logo
