From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rixed@happyleptic.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 606D57EE20
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:19:40 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=pra;
  client-ip=213.251.171.101;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=213.251.171.101;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@eneide.happyleptic.org) identity=helo;
  client-ip=213.251.171.101;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@eneide.happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4HAMCypFDV+6tl/2dsb2JhbABEi3G3WIEIgh8BBTpPC0YUKIhDvB2MMQWDAIJGYQOVe5BEgnA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,255,1352070000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="162544860"
Received: from eneide.happyleptic.org ([213.251.171.101])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2012 10:18:03 +0100
Received: from extranet.securactive.net ([82.240.34.113] helo=ccellier.rd.securactive.lan)
	by eneide.happyleptic.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>)
	id 1TYvZx-0000le-1U
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:17:45 +0100
Received: from rixed by ccellier.rd.securactive.lan with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>)
	id 1TYvZr-0007N0-U8
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:17:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:17:39 +0100
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20121115091739.GB26744@securactive.lan>
References: <20121114124355.7e8ca762@xivilization.net>
 <50A3ADC1.5090402@gmail.com>
 <20121114180012.68bf06df@xivilization.net>
 <1352961419.10207.8.camel@Nokia-N900>
 <20121115082443.2af5f758@xivilization.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121115082443.2af5f758@xivilization.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

-[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 08:24:43AM +0100, Marek Kubica ]----
> Actually, In Python tests are not routinely written in comments.

Well, at least here where I work, the python devs are more acustomed to
doctests than external tests.  And I think it's a clever trick as it serves
both the purpose of testing and documenting a function.

Of course this is not suitable for more in-depth testing, where external tests
are required. This is what's done in batteries: short and simple tests are
written inline where they are usefull to document how to use a function (there
were discussions about inserting these inline tests in the generated
documentation !), and longuer tests comes in external files compiled
separately.