On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr > wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Franco Saliola wrote: > > > I'm also in favor of _test_X to avoid cluttering up the tab > > > completion. Another option to increase visibility would be to have a > > > test object, e.g. > > > > > > sage: foo.test.associativity() > > > True > > > > +1. I think it merges the two concerns together nicely (visibility and > > avoiding clutter). > > Thanks for the feedback! I agree that the syntax looks good. > > But, err, guys, are you telling *me* that you want an attribute here > instead of a method? Or should this be: I'm fine with it as a lazy attribute. > foo.test().associativity? > > I also like the clean aspect of separating the test object. But one of > the main point of doing this would be to stick more closely to the > testunit framework. But then that would call for: > > foo.test().test_associativity() > > which is not that nice anymore. > > Some other questions: > > - what syntax do you want to run all tests? > > foo.check() > > foo.test().run() > > foo.test() / foo.test.associativity() > foo.test(). The __call__ method on the test object runs the tests (would this work with a lazy attribute? Yes, right?) > > - Do we want to have the .test object appear for every sage object? > i.e. 1.test (William was not that happy about this) What are some objects other than parents that would be making use of this? > > Other concerns: > > - This adds yet another layer of complexity. The user has to learn > that to implement foo.test.associativity, he should actually add a > method _test_associativity in the class of foo (or some > superclass). We want our users and developers to use and write lots > of tests, so we have to keep it simple, s*d. No, the user just needs to write some_elements(). Or, if they wanted more control over how associativity was tested, they could write _test_associativity(), but they wouldn't need to. > - I just don't have the time to implement this *now* (I probably > could do the renaming .check -> ._check and .test_bla to > ._test_bla). Sorry, I have been advertising this feature for more > than 3 months, and it would have been easier to reserve time for > this earlier in the process ... > Yeah, I know how that feels. Sorry to contribute to that in the category review. I'm working on it now. David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
