Skip to content
/ CheckL Public

Why write programs in Common Lisp but tests like Java? Meet CheckL!

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

rpav/CheckL

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

21 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

CheckL

Why write programs in Common Lisp but tests like Java?

My workflow for writing Common Lisp tends to be like this:

  • Write a bit of lisp, perhaps a function, class, or structure
  • Write a snippet in a scratch buffer to test
  • Fix if necessary and repeat

Testing is already inherent in this process, all we need is a little bit of Common Lisp magic to take advantage of it. Thus, CheckL:

(defun foo ()
  (+ 1 1))

(check () (foo)) ;; => 2

(defun foo ()
  (+ 1 2))

(check () (foo))

    |
    v

Result 0 has changed: 3
Previous result: 2
   [Condition of type CHECKL::RESULT-ERROR]

Restarts:
 0: [USE-NEW-VALUE] The new value is correct, use it from now on.
 1: [SKIP-TEST] Skip this, leaving the old value, but continue testing
 2: [RETRY] Retry SLIME interactive evaluation request.
 3: [*ABORT] Return to SLIME's top level.
 4: [TERMINATE-THREAD] Terminate this thread (#<THREAD "worker" RUNNING {100586AB13}>)

See the full documentation for more details!

About

Why write programs in Common Lisp but tests like Java? Meet CheckL!

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published