bug#28385: ert "should" macros to not be globally visible

bug#28385: ert "should" macros to not be globally visible

[Glenn Morris]

Package: emacs
Version: 25.2
Severity: wishlist

emacs -Q -l ert

Now "should", "should-not", and "should-error" are globally defined as
macros (with no "ert-" prefix). They are only useful inside ert-deftests.
Perhaps they should steal a trick from the similar "skip-unless", which
is not globally visible. The global definition is "ert--skip-unless",
and the ert-deftest macro basically makes "skip-unless" an alias for
this inside the body of a test. This seems cleaner.

bug#28385: ert "should" macros to not be globally visible

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Now "should", "should-not", and "should-error" are globally defined as
> macros (with no "ert-" prefix). They are only useful inside ert-deftests.
> Perhaps they should steal a trick from the similar "skip-unless", which
> is not globally visible. The global definition is "ert--skip-unless",
> and the ert-deftest macro basically makes "skip-unless" an alias for
> this inside the body of a test. This seems cleaner.

When writing tests, I find it convenient that I can `C-x C-e'

  (should ...)

terms.  I mean, I could just `C-x C-e' the insides of the form instead,
but still...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#28385: ert "should" macros to not be globally visible

[Stefan Kangas]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Now "should", "should-not", and "should-error" are globally defined as
>> macros (with no "ert-" prefix). They are only useful inside ert-deftests.
>> Perhaps they should steal a trick from the similar "skip-unless", which
>> is not globally visible. The global definition is "ert--skip-unless",
>> and the ert-deftest macro basically makes "skip-unless" an alias for
>> this inside the body of a test. This seems cleaner.
>
> When writing tests, I find it convenient that I can `C-x C-e'
>
>   (should ...)
>
> terms.  I mean, I could just `C-x C-e' the insides of the form instead,
> but still...

I agree; I do this all the time when developing tests.  C-x C-e inside
the form doesn't help much e.g. when you have a let form doing some
setup that contains multiple should statements.  (See
test/lisp/bookmark-tests.el for an example.)

With all due respect to Glenn, I would suggest to close this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

bug#28385: ert "should" macros to not be globally visible

[Stefan Kangas]

tags 28385 + wontfix notabug
close 28385
thanks

Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>
>> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Now "should", "should-not", and "should-error" are globally defined as
>>> macros (with no "ert-" prefix). They are only useful inside ert-deftests.
>>> Perhaps they should steal a trick from the similar "skip-unless", which
>>> is not globally visible. The global definition is "ert--skip-unless",
>>> and the ert-deftest macro basically makes "skip-unless" an alias for
>>> this inside the body of a test. This seems cleaner.
>>
>> When writing tests, I find it convenient that I can `C-x C-e'
>>
>>   (should ...)
>>
>> terms.  I mean, I could just `C-x C-e' the insides of the form instead,
>> but still...
>
> I agree; I do this all the time when developing tests.  C-x C-e inside
> the form doesn't help much e.g. when you have a let form doing some
> setup that contains multiple should statements.  (See
> test/lisp/bookmark-tests.el for an example.)
>
> With all due respect to Glenn, I would suggest to close this as wontfix.

No further comments within 45 weeks, so I'm closing this now.

Feel free to reopen if you disagree and we can discuss it.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas