I don't have slides and I don't recall this post, but I recall posting somewhere, not too long ago (this is conceptual not verbatim):
PURE FUNCTIONS are tested via -- f(in) = out IMPURE FUNCTIONS NEE are tested via -- set up state -- set up frame condition testing -- f(in) = out %% use the proper equality, kind of true above but now we need intensionality too -- test intended effects -- test frame conditions -- tear down state People tend to omit frame conditions but they shouldn't. How do you know that your effectful functions don't affect other aspects of state? -- Matthias On Jun 13, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Eric Tanter wrote: > Thanks a lot Stephen. Effectively, that's not at all what I was remembering > (which was rather "picture-centric"), but that is also very helpful. > > I'll keep on mining the list archives until I find it or someone remembers. > > Cheers, > > -- Éric > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:45 PM, Stephen Bloch <johne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Eric Tanter wrote: >> >>> I remember that someone, some time ago (how precise!), posted on this list >>> a link to a couple of slides that nicely and concisely illustrate the >>> advantages of pure functions vs. impure ones when doing testing. >> >> This is probably not what you're remembering, but you could take a look at >> http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/papers/func-imp-testing.pdf >> which is one of my slides from a conference talk. >> >> Stephen Bloch >> sbl...@adelphi.edu >> >> >> > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
