One thing I would also like to be able to do, based on this discussion, is make a rackunit/base library that has very minimal dependencies and provides a minimal testing infrastructure. I'd be happy with something like check-equal? only at the top-level, ish.
Is that something that your changes would affect? Robby On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ryan Culpepper <ry...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On 02/20/2011 10:37 AM, Noel Welsh wrote: >> >> Here's a proposal that attempts to synthesise prior discussion. It >> support the features I want without imposing overhead on Eli. > > I'm starting to think we're going about this the wrong way. I predict that > if we continue, this discussion will devolve into an exchange of "too > simple! too simple!" and "too complex! too complex!". > > Here's a new proposal. I'll convert the rackunit gui to use my proposed > result type (probably with minor changes). Any other test framework > maintainer can design a result type that models their own testing framework, > and I'll write a conversion function from their type to mine. I believe the > type I proposed subsumes the others, and I don't think anyone has expressed > interest in the arrows going the other direction. > > Then we can continue this discussion with more concrete experience. > > Ryan > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
