From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8859F7EE20 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:00:48 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of forum@x9c.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=87.98.184.158; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="forum@x9c.fr"; x-sender="forum@x9c.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of forum@x9c.fr designates 87.98.184.158 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=87.98.184.158; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="forum@x9c.fr"; x-sender="forum@x9c.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mo3.mail-out.ovh.net) identity=helo; client-ip=87.98.184.158; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="forum@x9c.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@mo3.mail-out.ovh.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As4BAPvao1BXYrienGdsb2JhbABEw2MBAQEBAQgLCQkUJ4IeAQEEAXkFCwsYLiE2BhOHeAMJCgexXw2JVIg/gwVphUthA5QngnGKFogB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,252,1352070000"; d="scan'208";a="181521107" Received: from 11.mo3.mail-out.ovh.net (HELO mo3.mail-out.ovh.net) ([87.98.184.158]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2012 19:00:48 +0100 Received: from mail417.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo3.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 62597FF88B3 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:11:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Nov 2012 20:00:46 +0200 Received: from ip-131.net-82-216-20.versailles2.rev.numericable.fr (HELO ?192.168.0.11?) (forum%x9c.fr@82.216.20.131) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Nov 2012 20:00:45 +0200 X-Ovh-Mailout: 178.32.228.3 (mo3.mail-out.ovh.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: "forum@x9c.fr" In-Reply-To: <20121114180012.68bf06df@xivilization.net> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:00:45 +0100 Cc: "forum@x9c.fr" , caml-list@inria.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6973F6F3-317F-46A6-A53D-8796FB33E679@x9c.fr> References: <20121114124355.7e8ca762@xivilization.net> <50A3ADC1.5090402@gmail.com> <20121114180012.68bf06df@xivilization.net> To: Marek Kubica X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 15874344262373147632 X-Ovh-Remote: 82.216.20.131 (ip-131.net-82-216-20.versailles2.rev.numericable.fr) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-OVH-SPAMSTATE: OK X-OVH-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-OVH-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeehgedrtdehucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfhrhhomhepfdhfohhruhhmseiglegtrdhfrhdfuceofhhorhhumhesgieltgdrfhhrqeenucffohhmrghinhepgieltgdrfhhrnecujfgurhepufggtgfhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqredthhdthe X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeehgedrtdehucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfhrhhomhepfdhfohhruhhmseiglegtrdhfrhdfuceofhhorhhumhesgieltgdrfhhrqeenucffohhmrghinhepgieltgdrfhhrnecujfgurhepufggtgfhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqredthhdthe Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages Le 14 nov. 2012 =E0 18:00, Marek Kubica a =E9crit : > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:09 -0500 > Edgar Friendly wrote: >=20 >> (=85) >=20 > I actually like test extraction frameworks, tools like nose and py.test > have made writing tests with Python much nicer, that's why I'm somehow > unimpressed how verbose OUnit is. But having the test code in a comment > seems ugly to me. Maybe there could be some CamlP4 hack to exclude it > on normal compilation? Being not found of extraction myself, I made another proposal in the latest revision of Kaputt: instead of using mli/ml file couples, I tend to now use mli/ml/mlt file triples. In this setting, the mlt file simply conta= ins the code related to tests. Then, at compilation a small camlp4 preprocessor concatenates the contents of ml and mlt files before actual compilation. My understanding is that it reconciles two antagonistic goals: - separate application code from test code; - allow test code to access unexported elements. I would be glad to hear what people think of this scheme, independently of the Kaputt library itself (which I am not advertising here). One can read more in section 3.3 of the manual available at: http://kaputt.x9c.fr/downloads.html Regards, Xavier Clerc =20=