> There are some technical advantages to SmallCheck (determinism, no need > to shrink etc.), but the main reason I prefer it is because it gives me > more confidence. With quickcheck, I know that it generated 100 tests, but > I've no idea what those tests are, and whether the RNG missed some > important corner cases. With SmallCheck I know that it tried *all* cases up > to certain depth, so it's much more reassuring. (Except for cases when the > notion of depth isn't that informative, like floating-point numbers.) I looked at documentation of SmallCheck and I guess it deserves more attention from me :) Test repeatibility sounds very good - that's something I actually miss in QC.
Jan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
