Re: Python-style doctests in Guile (implemented, please comment)

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Vítor De Araújo <address@hidden> writes:
> On 10/10/2017 15:21, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> I’m sorry for answering so late; your suggestion stuck to my mind as a
>> clean and schemish solution for my usecase (thank you!) but it took me
>> quite a while to realize it.
>
> I'm glad you liked it. :)

I do, very much so. It’s another case of Guile already providing
something I know from Python, but much cleaner — and (on the downside)
with less infrastructure built on top of it.

> [snip]
>> Now there’s one first question: How should I call it? :-)
>> 
>> Currently the modules is (examples doctests). Do you have a better idea
>> than "doctests"?
>
> Maybe "proptests", since they are stored in the function properties
> rather than inside the docstring? Or maybe "vectests", since they are
> written inside a vector? (Of these I think "proptest" sounds better,
> because it sounds more like "doctest".) Or maybe just go along with
> "doctests".

Hm, yes, though proptest seems hard to pronounce. Since the string is
called documentation string, the test could really just stick to being
called documentation test (doctest).

Thanks again!

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature