[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: testing syntax
At Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:55:23 -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> Any preferences for or against these changes?
> (1) Move optional test-name to the end of the argument list?
> (2) Move the "expected value" argument *before* the "expression to
> evaluate" argument. E.g. instead of:
> (test-eqv test-expr expected)
> we'd use:
> (test-eqv expected test-expr)
> Aubrey argued for this change. It turns out JUnit also has the
> "expected" value as the first operand.
Gauche also puts the expected value first.
> (3) We need some routines for testing inexact numbers.
> I suggested earlier:
> (test-approximate [test-name] test-expression expected [error])
> where is a relative error which defaults to 0.001. Equivalent to:
> (test-assert (and (>= result (- expected (* expected error))
> (>= result (+ expected (* expected error)))))
[I think you meant <= for the second >=.]
How can both the name and error be optional in the above syntax?
Perhaps it would be easier to use a global parameter (or possibly
associated per group or test suite) for the relative error.
A good default is hard to choose. SRFI-56 uses 0.00001 for its
inexact tests and several Schemes manage to pass, but it isn't
compounding a large number of inexact operations as you'd find in some