On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:27:35 -0600 Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Schmiedl <s...@xss.de> wrote: > > > > Are there specific reasons or situations when using > > > > (require test-engine/racket-tests) > > > > is "superior" to using the test framework provided in > > > > (require rackunit) ? > > No apriori reason, no. The two evolved independently, > test-engine/racket-tests was originally designed as part of the > teaching languages and so makes design decisions that are better > suited there (specifically for showing the results of test case > failures). rackunit was designed for the full languages and I believe > it has more features for putting tests together into test suites and > support for adding your own kind of test cases and extending existing > ones. > > And there is also a third unit test framework that Eli wrote that > takes the position that it should be minimal, punting things like test > suites into Racket itself (by using functions, say). I'm not sure if > that last one is included in the documentation. I went and looked around a bit. Is this what you're referring to? (require tests/eli-tester) (test #t (< 1 2) (+ 1 2) => 3 (quotient/remainder 10 3) => (values 3 1) (car '()) =error> "expects argument of type") Very compact and avoids the problem of "what comes first" that I usually have with other frameworks :-) Thanks for pointing that one out. s. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
