On Jan 20, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> Or are you starting a "design recipe" yourself with the "GOAL", "STEP > 1"...? > > The reason I ask is this: before I received your answer this evening, I > was going to re-attack the problem; either by taking the opportunity to > look at the design recipe in HTDP (which I haven't done much more than > skim read a long time ago) or to "TDD as if you (I) mean it". > > In either case, I considered a problem; how do you unit-test macros? I have taken this part of your message to a separate thread and I have cc'ed the people who know more about this than I do. [No, they are not older, but they write more complex macros than I do. Mine always fit on a page and into a handful of modules.] I personally don't test/debug syntax definitions much. My path is almost always: define-syntax with syntax-rules to define-syntax with syntax-cases or syntax-parse these days. (Unless it is obvious.) I write a few small use cases in the same module that trigger the essential parts and I test them by testing run-time values. I start from simple definitions and add bells and whistles slowly. The macro stepper is my main friend along this path. --------------------------------------------------------------- I have proposed the exploration of a unit testing system many times. Usually I get a speech on why this is not what I want. I never understand and I never have time to rebut on the spot. So I let it sink in and I try differently a few months later. Perhaps it is going to be written down this time, and then I can look it up in the future. Better for my old brain -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
