This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 64 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 64 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Noel Welsh wrote:
Why isn't this test framework compositional? The spec makes explicit mention of this, but doesn't justify it.
I think it's on the proponents of "compositionality" to justify the need for it. What expactly are you trying to achieve with "compositionality", and why aren't functions good enough? I believe the proposal is "compositional" in that it separates: (a) test cases; (b) test-runners; (c) and framework/api implementation. These are all independent.
It feels really...old-fashioned to program in this way, and tomy mind un-Schemely.
I might argue that using functions is more "Schemely" that creating lots of "test-case objects". Before you can argue that "lack of compositionality" is a flaw, I think you need to provide use cases to illustrate this. Do you have an important functionality in mind that would be difficult to express using the proposal? You have to balance these against what I think are my proposal's main advantage: easy-to-write and compact test-cases, in addition to portability. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/