[racket] tests/eli-tester feedback (Was: Racket unit testing)

I guess I'm asking if true is bound somewhere or not.

Robby

On Monday, February 14, 2011, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> 6 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Monday, February 14, 2011, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> > Yesterday, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>> >> Eli Barzilay wrote at 02/13/2011 09:41 PM:
>> >> > It currently shoots for (and will continue in the future) a very
>> >> > low readability overhead -- that's the whole reason for the
>> >> > infixish `=>' syntax. [...] To put this differently, I view tests
>> >> > as an important thing that lives in the api neighborhood.  So
>> >> > anything that requires looking at the documentation for casual
>> >> > readers is as bad as writing the manual in hebrew and and handing
>> >> > out dictionaries.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not so sure about the requirement "readability by casual readers
>> >> of the source without requiring looking at the documentation".
>> >
>> > I'm tempted to ask what would you consider unclear about
>> >
>> >   (test (+ 1 2) => 3)
>> >
>> > but that's getting into subjectiveland.  In any case, I figured that
>> > a much better solution to avoid some new `/=>' is to have instead a
>> > new `true' so that (test E => true) works for any non-#f value.
>>
>> That looks worse to me than (test (and X #true) => #true) because it
>> raises all the new keyword binding issues. FWIW.
>
> I'm not following this comment.
>
> --
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                     http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
>