[Chicken-hackers] Re: [Chicken-users] Integrating unit tests into source code

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Peter Bex wrote:
> It might be useful, but typically tests are much bigger than a single
> sexpr.  If you really want to test a function well, you'll have to
> write tests around all the corner cases and weird combinations.
> How bigger a function is, the more tests you'll need.  I'm not sure
> I'd want to clutter up my code with tests like that.
>
> I like the idea of 'contracts' a lot more.  PLT scheme has a library
> for those.  See http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Tmp/contracts.html
> for a draft manual/guide on how to use them.  Contracts specify the
> how a function should behave.  With a library like this you don't
> need to hack the core compiler either.
>
> The major difference between contracts and tests is that contracts
> are of a declarative nature while tests are more like exhaustive
> example uses of a function and what the result ought to be.
>
> Also, if we're lucky we can snarf the existing PLT code and modify
> it, which would save a lot of work.
>   

Bear in mind that PLT Scheme is LGPLed, as is the mzlib containing 
contracts.ss.
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/mzlib/mzlib-Z-H-54.html#node_chap_Temp_9
That means it could only be snarfed as an egg.  If contract programming 
is meant to be "core" to the way people use Chicken - which seems to be 
what Felix has in mind - then I'd say it's an unacceptable license 
pollution.

Of course, LGPL code can be gradually "whittled down," taking on more 
and more functionality in either toplevel or parallel libraries, so long 
as you're writing your own code and not cutting and pasting their code.  
But, it takes time to whittle things down, and someone has to actually 
do that.  In the real world, who will?

Are there any BSD licensed Schemes worth poaching?


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every