Thanks Jay. If you can recall those 2 things I can take a look at them at some point.
Regarding the future of Scheme/Racunit: - I definitely want a typed version. It appears this will have to be maintained separately from the untyped version due to the restriction on polymorphism. :( - There was some discussion a while where Eli outlined a more consistent testing framework. I'd like to implement that as the next version of Racunit. SchemeUnit 3 was a big improvement over 2 for some users but the model has become inconsistent in places. - Random testing and property based testing are the two areas I'd like to include support for. [Property based testing is a kinda meaningless phrase but a combinator library ala contracts might evolve out of this. Also randomtest.plt is a very nice starting place.] N. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just committed an untested version. I've typed everything the docs > mention (not everything exported by the library) except for two things > I don't understand. ... > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: >> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 2:14 AM, keyd...@gmx.de <keyd...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> Would anyone know if a typed version of schemeunit is under development >>> (otherwise, I'd consider moving to test-engine for now)? >> >> It's under development in the sense that I'd like to implement it in >> the future, but there's no definite schedule. Patches are always >> welcome. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
