hi,

Bruno Cabasson <bru### [at] yahoofr> wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> Please find hereafter new versions of "primitives.inc" and
> "collections.in" with unit-testing code.
>
> Working on unit-testing "oocore.inc", the core Object Oriented features.
> Then will come "objects.inc" and its unit-testing file(s).

have had a look around, some nice ideas there, genuinely looking forward to
seeing where, application-wise, your efforts will lead.  while the following
will probably read like "critique", it's not really, just highlighting
(potential) issues, and yes, adding a "gripe" or two :-).

names.  collections.inc:234:"// Could not use 'slice' as it is a SDL keyword".
so why not 'Slice' (not that I'm advocating uppercase use :-)) or '_slice'?  the
problem, imo, is not the keyword per se, but your use of names like 'get()' for
"globally visible"s, ie no "namespacing".  the "obvious" choice would be 'oo'
followed by underscore or camelcase.  (macro names used unadorned include:
check, exec, exists, extend, get, in, list, map, next.  sure, not keywords, but
common perhaps?)

if I understand the code correctly, in 'primitives.inc' you use the 'rgb'
keyword to coerce values to 3-vector format?  would '<1,1,1>*value' not do the
same, "cleaner"?

extend() - not sure how far you will be able to .. bend SDL :-), but think that
an important macro like extend should be "general".  clipka's advice wrt arrays
was (paraphrasing) "if you know the #elements in advance, declare the array
sized"; however, if I were to:
  #declare A = array [2] {"a","b"};
  #declare B = array [2] {"c","d"};
  extend(A,B)
I'd get: "Parse Error: Array subscript out of range".

gripe(s): why does yr editor not always place whitespace between keyword and
brace?  personally also not a friend of long lines, particularly when concluded
by C++ style comment(s).  including another include (colours) for just white +
yellow?  (also makes the versioning more "dependent")  tja, and then there's the
unit test output.. :-)  without any documentation for yr project, the results of
unit testing can only be of interest if the output _tells_ what one is looking
at, and states (consistently) 'fail' or 'pass', or such.  (time _is_ precious)

anyway, as I said, curious + interested to see how it will all develop.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message