Brittle exception tests
(no sender)
(16 Jun 2020 07:37 UTC)
|
Re: Brittle exception tests
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(16 Jun 2020 19:19 UTC)
|
Re: Brittle exception tests
(no sender)
(16 Jun 2020 20:19 UTC)
|
Re: Brittle exception tests
John Cowan
(16 Jun 2020 21:45 UTC)
|
Re: Brittle exception tests
(no sender)
(17 Jun 2020 10:33 UTC)
|
Re: Brittle exception tests Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (17 Jun 2020 22:19 UTC)
|
Re: Brittle exception tests Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 17 Jun 2020 22:18 UTC
On 2020-06-16 22:18 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > In the error test for `maybe-join', there is not much to test because > "it is an error" does not have to be signaled. Your test only tests > your specific implementation, not any portable implementation. In my > opinion, portable test suites are most helpful (because they encourage > alternative implementations), so I would drop that particular test. > And I would use `assume' of SRFI 145 instead of `error' in the sample > implementation because `assume' is exactly for these "it is an error" > cases. > > The same comment holds for all other occurrences of `catch-errors' > except for the test for `maybe-if', where the specification says that > an error is signaled. Here, you cannot use `error-object?' either in a > portable test because a portable implementation may not use `error' to > signal the error but use `raise' on some implementation-defined > object. Thus, you cannot guard against such an error portably (except > with a catch-all guard, which is brittle for tests and which should be > a no-go for programs). Thanks for the explanation, and for bearing with my ignorance. I'll remove the tests for the "it is an error" cases, and use `assume', rather than `error', for those cases in the implementation. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "It from bit." --John Wheeler