From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e866340cc4a9381f,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-05 20:51:26 PST
Path: 
 sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!pagesat!ukma!seismo!hal!hathor!jeffe
From: jeffe@hathor.CSS.GOV (Jeff Etrick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: testing Generics
Keywords: generics testing
Message-ID: <226@hathor.CSS.GOV>
Date: 5 Mar 93 13:14:46 GMT
Organization: ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, FL
Date: 1993-03-05T13:14:46+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I wanted to know what the net's opion on generic testing was.

I believe a generic procedure should be simple enough to test using a
test
driver which multiply instantiates the procedure for each intended use. If
this is not practical, then the generic is likely too complicated and
perhaps should be disected into more easily managed/tested parts.

Generics is Ada-ese for reusable objects, much the same way that objects
in
C++ or other OOP languages. Once a reusable object has been tested, it
should not have to be retested as it is imbedded into other applications.


Thanks,

Jeff

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery R. Etrick    NET:  jeffe@osiris.CSS.GOV
ENSCO INC.       MAIL: 445 Pineda Ct.  Melbourne, Fl.  32940
---------------------------------------------------------------