Re: C++ standards committee looking at adding Cairo to the C++ standard

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:


  I think that some people do have this idea. For example the Wikipedia
  contains this:

?using unit-tests as a design specification has one significant advantage?

  . It might be possible if one first establishes a formal specification
  language and then a formal and bijective mapping to unit tests.

  So, to contradict what I myself wrote in my previous post, the contract

      ?for all i, such that P(i): Q(f(i))?

  might be expressed as:

      ?select a random value i using a random generator G(P,i)
      assert Q(f(i))?

  . But while this might help to express contracts, it might not be the
  best approach to write unit tests. Unit test also need to fulfill
  other demands, for example, to find as many bugs as possible.
  And contracts might be easier for humans to understand when
  expressed using English than using unit test.