|From:||Brandon J. Van Every|
|Subject:||Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Integrating unit tests into source code|
|Date:||Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:36:57 -0800|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 22.214.171.124 (Windows/20061025)|
Thomas Christian Chust wrote:
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:[...] I don't oppose contract programming. I'm generally in favor of any testing method, good comments, and things that resemble literate programming. However, I think there are probably limits to what contract programming can do for people, so I'm not inclined to oversell it. It would be one heckuva specification language that could handle any arbitrary problem domain, with clarity and aplomb. [...]Hello, all the contract based programming systems I know don't come up with a specific language for describing the contracts. I usually see contract based programming systems as syntactic sugar allowing you to specify arbitrary code which will be run upon entry to and exit from a function.
How is that better than just writing tests then?
Of course it makes most sense to put parameter and return value checking assertions into those blocks, not something with strange side effects or the like, because all the contract blocks are usually automatically removed in the release build.
Standard way to add and remove tests, is that the benefit?
In contrary to unit tests, I find contracts very useful not only to debug library code, but also code using a library. But contracts don't replace tests.
I feel a need for Wikipedia coming on.
Like Felix said earlier in this thread, I would as well vote for a general code annotation system that could be used to implement both contracts and unit tests in CHICKEN.
Sounds good to me.
Brandon Van Every
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|