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

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:35:48 -0500
Stephen Bloch <sbloch at adelphi.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 
> >>> the `=>' is going to be required
> > -or- there's a single expression to test for a non-#f result, and
> > you'll use a nested `test' expression for those non-#f things.  This
> > still makes things less convenient for using random predicates, but
> > not much.  For example, a `fib' test suite that can currently look
> > like this:
> >
> >   (test (exact-nonnegative-integer? (fib 10))
> >         (fib 10) => 55)
> >
> > would instead be written as:
> >
> >   (test (test (exact-nonnegative-integer? (fib 10)))
> >         (fib 10) => 55)
> 
> How is this an improvement on
> (test (exact-nonnegative-integer? (fib 10)) => #t
>          (fib 10) => 55)
> which doesn't require any special cases at all?
> 

+1 on that.

(test
 (foo) => #t
 (bar) => 'baz)

would be very easy to type and quick to read and also force
you to make explicit if you expect something specific or
just anything not-#f.

s.