Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

[vincent.hugot]

Hello,

> In my opinion I dislike unit tests in comments, also because you throw
> away editor support 

In the case of qtest2 (iTeML), so far there is syntax highlighting for Emacs (maybe outdated) and Kate.

... but neither of them is in the repository so far... I'll fix that sometime soon.


I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near the function, they serve as short specifications, and being comments, they don't alter the compilation process in the least.


regards,
Vincent Hugot

Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

[Francois Berenger]

On 11/15/2012 05:13 PM, vincent.hugot@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> In my opinion I dislike unit tests in comments, also because you throw
>> away editor support
>
> In the case of qtest2 (iTeML), so far there is syntax highlighting for Emacs (maybe outdated) and Kate.
>
> ... but neither of them is in the repository so far... I'll fix that sometime soon.
>
>
> I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near the function, they serve as short specifications, and being comments, they don't alter the compilation process in the least.

I also like this approach.
Short tests also serve as usage examples.
Also, I like things to be centralised.

Regards,
F.

Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

[rixed]

-[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:58AM -0800, vincent.hugot@gmail.com ]----
> I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near the
> function, they serve as short specifications, and being comments, they don't
> alter the compilation process in the least.

The only drawback I saw is that adding or modifying a test triggers the
recompilation of the whole unit when using makefiles (since the file changed).
I wonder if there exist a tool that's able to find out that since only comments
where changed the module need not be recompiled. Maybe omake can do this ?

[Caml-list] Re: Preferred layout for new packages

[Dawid Toton]

On 11/15/2012 10:20 AM, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:
> -[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:58AM -0800, vincent.hugot@gmail.com ]----
>> I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near the
>> function, they serve as short specifications, and being comments, they don't
>> alter the compilation process in the least.
>
> The only drawback I saw is that adding or modifying a test triggers the
> recompilation of the whole unit when using makefiles (since the file changed).
> I wonder if there exist a tool that's able to find out that since only comments
> where changed the module need not be recompiled. Maybe omake can do this ?
>

You usually want correct line numbers to be preserved in the executable 
for e.g. assertion failures. So, in general, it's not possible to save 
time in the way you describe unless the compiler itself works in an 
incremental manner.
Dawid

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Preferred layout for new packages

[rixed]

-[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:59:38AM +0100, Dawid Toton ]----
> On 11/15/2012 10:20 AM, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:
> >-[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:58AM -0800, vincent.hugot@gmail.com ]----
> >>I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near the
> >>function, they serve as short specifications, and being comments, they don't
> >>alter the compilation process in the least.
> >
> >The only drawback I saw is that adding or modifying a test triggers the
> >recompilation of the whole unit when using makefiles (since the file changed).
> >I wonder if there exist a tool that's able to find out that since only comments
> >where changed the module need not be recompiled. Maybe omake can do this ?
> >
> 
> You usually want correct line numbers to be preserved in the
> executable for e.g. assertion failures. So, in general, it's not
> possible to save time in the way you describe unless the compiler
> itself works in an incremental manner.
> Dawid

Good catch. Thank you.

Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

[Aleksey Nogin]

On 15.11.2012 01:20, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:

> -[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:58AM -0800, vincent.hugot@gmail.com ]----
>> I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near
>> the function, they serve as short specifications, and being
>> comments, they don't alter the compilation process in the least.
> 
> The only drawback I saw is that adding or modifying a test triggers
> the recompilation of the whole unit when using makefiles (since the
> file changed). I wonder if there exist a tool that's able to find out
> that since only comments where changed the module need not be
> recompiled. Maybe omake can do this ?

OMake will do this - when compilation of the source file results in a
binary file that's identical to what you had before, the recompilation
stops there. E.g. when compilation of a changed .ml results in
.cmx/.cmo/.o identical to the one you had before, it knows not to
recompile/relink further.

Aleksey