Hi Frank, We don't plan to do anything like this. This would be adding a secondary function to spec.test/check that's not really its goal.
Alex On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:13:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Liu wrote: > > Hi All, > > Not sure if this is helpful or taking it too far, but often when I write a > function, I have a few typical happy and unhappy code paths in mind. It > would be nice if we can put that into spec's fdef. > > For example, in addition to :fn, :ret, :args, we add :examples, which is > just array of [val1 val2 -> ret]. More concretely, for +, [[1 2 -> 3] [1.0 > 2 -> 3.0]] (or however it should be defined). > > Then when you run spec.test, we will also run those examples. > > I think the benefits are: 1. it's a form of doc test, 2. no need to switch > to another file to write these simple tests, 3. and since there's less > overhead, we'd probably write more tests. > > Frank > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
