World: r3wp

>> unit-test sample-tests3
===================
TEST true test: true
true
false
 **FAILED**
 expected: true | got: true

Difference is between 
  true --  a logic value
  'true --  a word.

Try this:

sample-tests2: copy compose/deep[
	 [ 	n "hello true"
		f [ 1 == 1	 ]
		r (true)
	]
	[ 	n "hello not false"
		f [ not (false) ]
		r (true)
	]
]

I have been looking into this for for more than an hour

hi, Sunanda.. I will try

That forces the string t.r.u.e. into being a logic value, not the 
word 'true

hm.. now it works!!

words are complicated things in rebol, they are symbols, variables 
and litterals... the problem is that two of those forms share the 
same lexical syntax.  :-(

The root problem is here:
true = [true]

so the problem is that if I write [ true ] inro block and that doesn't 
get reduced/evaluated it's a word not a logic value?

Sorry, I meant:
  true = first [true]

Compare with
  true = first reduce [true]

what kind of tool are you using ? a unit test framework ? Can you 
give me the reference ?

Then  use compose/deep as a way of effecting a reduce/deep which 
is what you need.

aha, now I get it >> do [ true ] == first [ true ]
== false

That's it!
It's a subtle REBOL gotcha.

thanks for this, I was banging my head for more than an hour...

:) well at least now I know somethinh more

janko, you are now officially starting to be an advanced rebol user 
 ;-)   congratulations  :-)

there is a tool called runit ... designed by a guy i know, if you 
can get it maybe it can help

run

not runit sorry

Maxim : wow, then this hour was totally worth it ;)

Several of us have mortar dust in our hair from such issues :-)


Run unit is available here: (Peter Wood is an expert in using it):
http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=run.r

xavier, Sunanda: thanks I will look at it... I need just simple unit 
testing for now , but I will look at it to see what a bigger solution 
might be

its very easy to use :) and quite powerfull

is there any simple example of use somewhere?

i still have some sample on my laptop

i send them to you

The documentation has some lengthy examples:
  http://www.rebol.org/documentation.r?script=run.r

aha cool

thanks

about word / value .. I see I there are functions word? value? which 
determine the difference between true-s

You mean like:
   word? true
   == false
   word? 'true 
   == true
Or:
   type? true
   ==logic!
   type? 'true
   == word!

in the first case true is a value and in the second case true is 
a litteral

Janko, you can avoid the reduce/compose by using this syntax
>> true = first [true]
== false
>> true = first [#[true]]
== true

I changed the function to this so I can have testcases structure 
as it was initially

unit-test: func [ tests ] [ 
	foreach test tests [ 

  prin rejoin [ "===================" newline "TEST " test/n ": " ]
		res: if/else word? test/r [ do test/r ] [ test/r ]
		print if/else ( (do test/f) == res ) [ 
			" passed"	
		] [

   rejoin [ " **FAILED**" newline " expected: " mold test/r " | got: 
   " mold do test/f ]   
		]
		print ""
	]
]

I added the line :: res: if/else word? test/r [ do test/r ] [ test/r 
]

we prefer to use EITHER instead of IF/ELSE

aha, I would like it better to.. if/else is gard to read.. but I 
didn't know it exists :)

thanks

great, it all works now

What about using:
 **FAILED**^/ expected: 
 
instead of:
 **FAILED**
 newline " expected: "

>> ? newline
NEWLINE is a char of value: #"^/"
>> ? lf
LF is a char of value: #"^/"

Thanks Oldes, I didn't know for ^/ and I also didn't know that I 
can type "?" instead of "help"

and ?? too

sometimes can be usefull :)

:) I didn't know for this too.. but I did >>? ?? to find out now 
:)

...what it does . thanks

Example; say you are trying to debug an app and you have to print 
the contents of a word to the screen.
say you set the word 'value to 10
displaying value to the console can be done by using; print value
returns the result; 10


where as using  "?? value " instead, would return the word name with 
the value of the word beside it
value: 10


This prevents you from needed to add debugging code like'
print ["Value: " :value]