Marco Antoniotti wrote: > Gary King wrote: >> SUnit == Smalltalk Unit ==> Java Unit == JUnit. I believe SUnit was the >> Kent Beck's first unit testing framework. > > Ok. But then I fail to see wheter this is relevant too as a "defining" > feature. After all RT predates SUnit stuff. >
Especially as SUnit based design may or may not be the optimal choice for a Lisp-Unit-Test Framework, at least sometimes C++ Frameworks copied idiosyncracies from Java, where it would not have been necessary, or even be very "Un-C++-y" ;-). But I don't Lisp, and I haven't really digged deeply into Unit-Testing, because I'm more one of the "testing should just work" people. If there really exist some quite distinct "categories" of Unit-Test-Designs available, this column may be renamed to "Type", which then is labelled as "Xunit" respective "someothertypehere". >> It's true that ASDF-Installable may not be relevant but I sure find it >> convenient <smile>. > > Of course it is convenient, but it does not describe anything inherent > to "testing". > It's up to the developer to decide this. We are all old enough to decide ourself if we consider some functionality or packaging relevant or not -- and this small column is no information-overload. Maybe a change of the column to "package link", for linking to the asdf respective tarball or whatever is an option, since this is definitly worth a column -- the tested version is linked directly, the most current can be found whereever. mfg Markus > Cheers > -- > Marco _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
