On 10/13/05, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(ref: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/theory.pod)
theory Ring{::R} {
multi infix:+ (R, R -- R) {...}
multi prefix:- (R -- R){...}
multi infix:- (R $x, R $y -- R) { $x + (-$y) }
On 10/13/05, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started thinking about the in general, unverifiable programmatically
bit. While obviously true, perhaps we can get closer than just leaving
them as comments. It should be possible to associate a
unit-test-generator with the theory, so I can
(ref: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/theory.pod)
theory Ring{::R} {
multi infix:+ (R, R -- R) {...}
multi prefix:- (R -- R){...}
multi infix:- (R $x, R $y -- R) { $x + (-$y) }
multi infix:* (R, R -- R) {...}
# only technically
On Oct 13, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
I started thinking about the in general, unverifiable
programmatically bit. While obviously true, perhaps we can get
closer than just leaving them as comments. It should be possible to
associate a unit-test-generator with the theory, so I can
David Storrs wrote:
While I like the idea, I would point out that 1000 tests with randomly
generated data are far less useful than 5 tests chosen to hit boundary
conditions.
I come from a hardware verification background. The trend in this
industry is driven from the fact that the
