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

Matthias Felleisen wrote at 02/14/2011 11:28 AM:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>   
>> Going back to that root requirement... I think that unit testing should be so central to contemporary programming that we should just pick some syntax that makes sense for practical development both large and small, use it everywhere, and simply expect people who are looking at the source to know what Racket unit tests look like.  If we can do this canonical test syntax sensibly, and the syntax is set up so that we can plug in our own user interfaces for running the tests, I will convert all my existing and new open source code to use this canonical syntax.
>>     
> How about you look at three test suites and make a concrete proposal and take on the task of implementing the merger. We'll grant you write access to the repository in return -- Matthias

I will probably put together a proposed testing library as a PLaneT 
package, which anyone interested can then take a look at.  (Not 
immediately; my week is booked with consulting.)  If it turns out that 
people want to move Racket core to that, then I'd be willing to do the 
grunt work of converting the existing test suites in Racket core.

Eli, Noel, and perhaps others will have various other proposals.

This might be one of those Scheme-like situations, in which multiple 
smart people have reasoned independently about a problem, and then have 
difficulty reconciling the independent solutions.  And also, people like 
to work through their ideas without being burdened with premature 
compromise with other people's ideas.  I think we're probably already in 
that situation, but that it's nevertheless about time to finish up the 
marketplace of ideas and pick a standard.  I think the process at this 
point should be for those with the time and inclination to polish up 
their proposals, then people look at the proposals, and then somehow it 
is decided what the standard will be.

Perhaps the standard will be proposal P, plus some idea from proposal Q.

Whatever standard we end up with, I will figure out what qualities I'd 
like it to have, and try to get those in the standard.

-- 
http://www.neilvandyke.org/