On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 22:17 +0100, Joel Reymont wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:11 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Why can't you just do 'f 1 2 3 == (4, 5, 6, 7)' to test f?
That's what HUnit does but it's enticing to be able to standardize on
QuickCheck for all of your testing.
Prelude
On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
Prelude Test.QuickCheck let prop0 = List.sort [3,2,1] == [1,2,3]
in quickCheck prop0
OK, passed 100 tests.
My point is to be able to see that result generated was X and that it
did not match expected Y, where both X and Y are printed out.
On Apr 16, 2007, at 9:29 PM, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
It's interesting to note that QuickCheck generalises unit testing:
zero-arity QC properties are exactly unit tests.
I don't think this works very well. I rely quite heavily on being
able to compare expected output with test results
Why can't you just do 'f 1 2 3 == (4, 5, 6, 7)' to test f?
On Apr 16, 2007, at 22:08 , Joel Reymont wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 9:29 PM, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
It's interesting to note that QuickCheck generalises unit testing:
zero-arity QC properties are exactly unit tests.
I don't
That's what HUnit does but it's enticing to be able to standardize on
QuickCheck for all of your testing.
On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:11 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Why can't you just do 'f 1 2 3 == (4, 5, 6, 7)' to test f?
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
