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

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Schmiedl <s at xss.de> wrote:
> Naively speaking (and without reading any docs ;-), I'd expect =>
> to handle "normal" operations. Using error-arrows is a good idea,
> as it makes it clearly visible that there's something going on here
> without clobbering the test descriptions.
>
> In Robby's case (+ x 1) would raise an error, which would _not_
> be caught by => but instead show up as normal exception.
>
> I'm not convinced that you'd need more than one type of error arrow,
> though.

Syntax errors are sufficiently different that it seems warranted to
me. It is just to easy to duplicate a syntax error on both sides of
the => when you really meant to be testing something else (even an
error condition). Unless you're testing a macro, after all, you don't
want any syntax errors at all.

Robby