These are chat archives for non/algebra

11th
Jul 2015
Erik Osheim
@non
Jul 11 2015 00:36
@johnynek hey -- would you be ok with an 0.2.0 release this weekend?
i want to get a non-snapshot release out, so we can get cats 0.1.0 out
i think at this point the biggest things we are missing are instances -- and those are easy for end users to add
(that, and syntax, which we agreed algebra wasn't going to provide.)
Erik Osheim
@non
Jul 11 2015 01:20
@tixxit @johnynek @avibryant @larsrh more generally -- is it ok to release 0.x without too much discussion/fanfare? as PRs come in, we'll probably want stable pre-1.0 releases for people to test against
FrankRaiser
@FrankRaiser
Jul 11 2015 10:38
I have a general question about property-based testing.. @johnynek found a problem in my PR (quite correctly found), which really points to a problem I've always had with property-based testing, namely the lack of existential (exemplary) tests
when you have a lot of forAll tests.. it always seems like there's a dozen semantically very different implementations available to satisfy these
for my own stuff I usually resorted to additional example tests (basically, because universal quantification is easily satisfied by empty sets)
I haven't seen any of those in algebra.. is that on purpose and how do you guard against these semantic variations where the laws are satisfied but the actual implementation does something totally strange?
Cody Allen
@ceedubs
Jul 11 2015 12:58
@FrankRaiser I’m not very involved in algebra, but I do think that the sweet spot is a combination of property-based tests and standard example tests. Though admittedly I tend to just put together property-based tests because they can be so easy to create.
Also I remember a talk that Jessica Kerr gave a talk in which she said that if nothing else, the “manual” tests serve as nice documentation of how something is used.
that struck a chord with me
InTheNow
@InTheNow
Jul 11 2015 15:12
This message was deleted