On 06/04/10 08:32, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 06/03/10 11:47, Darren New wrote:
>>>> On top of that, any kind of testing is going to be easier if a
>>>> function's output depends only on its current inputs...
>>> Yep. The problem with "unit testing" per se is that it only tests a
>>> unit. It doesn't test anything except the invariants of the unit you're
>>> testing.
>>
>>     I wouldn't call it a "problem".
> 
> Well, a limitation.  I do very little programming where the invariants
> of the class are particularly difficult to ensure.  That would be
> "datastructures" and "file systems", which I use system/language
> libraries for.

	I think you took me too seriously. I meant that it does precisely what
it claims to. It's not meant for all kinds of tests. Just one kind.

	I suppose limited is more appropriate, but it still sounds too
negative.<G> It's like saying mutt is limited because it doesn't send
mails and needs the sendmail command. It just was never meant for
sending mail.

-- 
Guitar for sale. Very cheap. No strings attached.

Post a reply to this message