I really don't want to go down that road but I guess if there is no choice I will have to... originally I had a predicate that explicitly returned the tests... I think I will do both... I will have a predicate that if it exists, can return a bunch of tests and they will be executed in order.
OK, I can live with that, thanks again Paulo! :) On 21 November 2013 15:56, Paulo Moura <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21/11/2013, at 15:48, emacstheviking <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > There is no mention of the actual order of returned predicates, > > For a good reason. That's not something that you should rely upon. > > > recently I created a testing framework and it has this line of code > thanks to Daniel, > > > > findall(Name,(current_predicate(Name/0), atom_concat('test_', _, > Name)),AllTests) > > > > I am writing tests now that rely upon them being executed in the order > that they are defined in the source file i.e. the temporal order in which > they were added to the database I presume. > > > > However, they do not seem to come out in the expected order unless I > have done something wrong but the above line of code is what dictates the > order of execution. > > An alternative could be to use an identifier per test that you can compare > and sort. An example from the Logtalk's "ack" example unit tests: > > test(ack_1) :- > ... > test(ack_2) :- > ... > test(ack_3) :- > ... > > Cheers, > > Paulo > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Paulo Moura > Logtalk developer > > Email: <mailto:[email protected]> > Web: <http://logtalk.org/> > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users-prolog mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog >
_______________________________________________ Users-prolog mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/users-prolog
