On 14/10/2010, at 4:50 PM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: > On Monday 11 Oct 2010 7:56:02 am Julian Leviston wrote: >> I think this is better off baked in because it would encourage programmers >> (users of the language) to write down what they intend to do before they >> do it. Something most people do whenever they're going to do something >> complicated anyway. It would encourage people to take care and to not code >> things quickly, but it would also provide regression tests. > This is why asserts were introduced. What you call a spec is nothing but the > sequence: > self assert: self inv and: self p. > self dosomething. > self assert: self inv and: self q. > > Where inv is the state invariant and p and q are pre- and post- conditions on > the parts of the state undergoing modifications. Researchers are interested > in > inv, p and q while most practitioners depend on doSomething. assert strikes a > balance between the two. > > Subbu
I'm well aware of testing frameworks. I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. Sorry about that! Executable documentation coupled with behavioural testing baked in is what I'm after. ie the code won't actually execute without a checksum existing first that indicates that the test suite has been run across this code. Julian. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
