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

[Peter Busser]

Hi!

> I've never cared about contract programming, because I'm too saddled 
> with performance concerns to worry about that.

I am not familiar with contract programming. In a previous message in
this thread, I read that it had something to do with asserts. GNOME uses
asserts too. They are macros which can be enabled or disabled at
compile time. So there does not have to be a performance impact.

> I'm saying, testing and errors are appropriate when your design is more 
> stable.  That's rather downstream, and also a rather expensive support 
> burden.

Do you assume that using contracts will be mandatory? I think writing
tests and contracts and such are always voluntary, even if for no other
reason than for backward compatibility with R5RS.

> Oops.  The problem, in my point of view, is that you Unix guys are 
> always setting up mailing lists to be "Reply To Sender." So I have to 
> manually type the name of the list every time I reply.  Sometimes I make 
> a mistake.

A few years ago most ``UNIX'' based mailing lists I was subscribed to
were reply-to-mailing-list kind of lists. The problem with you Windows guys
is that you configure your mail server, clients, or whatever to send ``I am
out of office'' messages for every message they receive and no matter
where it comes from. So during the holiday season, mailing lists would
receive the same kind of ``I am out of office'' kind of e-mails from the
same people over and over and over again.

> Another problem is I sometimes have trouble telling where a thread 
> actually belongs.  I suppose "do you like testing or contract programmer 
> interfaces?" is a Users question.  How to do it, such as where you will 
> snarf code from, is a Hackers question.

I am not subscribed to chicken-hackers, but I like to know about things
like these. Because it possibly changes the way people use Chicken.

Groetjes,
Peter.