Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19
From: Kevin Berry (kevin_at_berry_REM0VETH1S_ware.com)
Date: 12/21/04
- Next message: Jim Cooper: "Re: Unit Testing Non-Believer"
- Previous message: Mark G. Zeringue: "Re: Delphi for Windows CE.NET - vote for it"
- In reply to: Captain Jake: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Next in thread: John Jacobson: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: John Jacobson: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: Jim Cooper: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:13:38 -0600
Captain Jake wrote:
> Design by contract results in a nice clean syntax when it is built into the
> language, but it isn't anything you can not implement using asserts.
One of the benefits of DBC is that unit testing can be automated better.
If you have a set of pre and post-conditions you can have some kind of
automated tool that uses this information to generate test cases. At
least that's the way I understand it. I've never used DBC in practice
so it's all just theory to me, but the theory sounds good...
Cheers,
Kevin.
- Next message: Jim Cooper: "Re: Unit Testing Non-Believer"
- Previous message: Mark G. Zeringue: "Re: Delphi for Windows CE.NET - vote for it"
- In reply to: Captain Jake: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Next in thread: John Jacobson: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: John Jacobson: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: Jim Cooper: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|