Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 10:20, Graham Klyne wrote:
[...] I would expect that when using GHC to compile a
stand-alone Haskell program, any expressions that are not referenced are
not included in the final object program, so leaving these test cases
uncommented would be harmles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> There is only one problem I've found with test-driven development in
> Haskell. In C++, it's possible to break the "module" abstraction
> (yes, I know, C++ doesn't have modules; it has classes, which are really
> instantiable modules) by using "friend". In Haskell, I
G'day all.
Quoting Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On a side note, I've found QuickCheck to be great for these kinds of
> unit tests. As an example, I was able to turn someone else's code for a
> trie data structure into a multi-trie (like a bag is to a set) without
> fully understanding the
G'day all.
Quoting Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But I also wonder if this is a sign that the XP approach to test-led
> development isn't being followed faithfully. Theoretically (as I
> understand XP), the tests *are* the specification. And things that aren't
> exposed can't be part of t
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 10:20, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Which leads to a question: I've been thinking that the "white box" tests
> may be better served by test expressions coded *within* the module
> concerned. In many cases, I create these, then en-comment them when the
> code is working. I would
At 12:23 02/01/04 +, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
The compiler would then (optionally?) run the tests as part
of the compilation. This would bind the tests more tightly
to the programme than is now possible.
Ooh! There's an interesting idea. I guess it's like a kind of 'assert'
that get's optimized
At 21:07 01/01/04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Haskell, I find myself
occasionally having to expose parts of a module which I would prefer not
to, in order for the unit tests suite to do their job effectively.
Yes, I've found that too.
But I also wonder if this is a sign that the XP approach
G'day all.
One small note on style while I think of it.
Quoting Derek Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> module FooInternals where
>
> publicFoo :: Foo -> Bar
> publicFoo x = privateFrob x
>
> privateFrob x :: Foo -> Bar
> privateFrob x = ...
>
> debugFoo :: (Foo -> Bar) -> Foo -> Bar
> debugFoo f x
G'day all.
Quoting Derek Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The "nicer" way*, though it could use less typing and "extraneous"
> files, is simply use multiple modules.
Yes, this was my solution, too. Nested modules might make this even
nicer.
Of course, Haskell's module system could do with a redes
On 2004-01-01 at 21:07EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is only one problem I've found with test-driven development in
> Haskell. In C++, it's possible to break the "module" abstraction
> (yes, I know, C++ doesn't have modules; it has classes, which are really
> instantiable modules) by using
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:07:00 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > (6) I have found that Haskell seems to a particularly effective
> > platform for pursuing some ideas of extreme programming,
>
> There you go. :-)
>
> There is only one problem I've found with test-driven development in
> Haskell.
G'day all.
Quoting Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (2) I find that I spend a far greater portion of my time *thinking* about
> what I'm trying to do than actually coding it. There used to be an adage
> in the software industry that programmer productivity in lines-of-code per
> day was indep
At 17:44 23/12/03 -0500, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:26:20 +
Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(moved to Haskell-Cafe as this reply might generate several more)
> I've spent part of the past few months learning Haskell and developing
> a moderately sized application. I ca
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:39:33AM +, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> It now seems to me that (some?) Monads are kinds of Functors, generalized
> to handle the "no value" case, and also composition.
>
> This also had me thinking about sequence: is there a generalization to
> arbitrary monads that
[switching to Haskell-cafe]
At 19:37 23/12/03 +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:26:20PM +, Graham Klyne wrote:
> [1] http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/Learning-Haskell-Notes.html
Thanks, that was a nice reading :)
Thanks!
(If by any chance there's anything here that
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:26:20 +
Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(moved to Haskell-Cafe as this reply might generate several more)
> I've spent part of the past few months learning Haskell and developing
> a moderately sized application. I came to this from a long background
> (20 year
16 matches
Mail list logo
