Tue May 24 00:53:53 CEST 2011
Edmond Begumisa wrote:
> Thanks John,
> This was most helpful and got me over that initial hurdle. I see now
> that property-based testing is more about defining how the system should
> behave and is best used as a design-time aid -- almost like programming
> by contract. Write properties first, code from there. Thinking of it the
> other way had caused me great confusion.
> ... , I'll direct the following silly questions to PropEr users
> * proper_fsm now makes more sense (reminds me a little of UBF(C)). But
> I'm having trouble with defining properties for my gen_servers. ...
> Thanks in advance for any help.
Sorry, but given the upcoming OTP release I have been swamped by other
more urgent duties... I do not have any answers to your questions at
this point in time (sorry about that) but I would like to mention that:
1. We are in the process of creating a PropEr web site where among
other things there will be PropEr tutorials, examples and FAQ.
Our intention is to have it ready by the Erlang Factory in London,
so please be a bit patient.
2. My talk in London will be about PropEr and what it can do for you:
3. The address you are using does not reach the PropEr users but its
developers. We'll set up such a user mailing list once we properly
announce the first version of our tool -- note that it is currently
unannounced even though I am aware that it's already being used by
quite a few companies and many Erlang developers out there.
More information about the erlang-questions