[erlang-questions] PropEr after test clean up
Wed May 27 11:25:55 CEST 2015
Well is so uncommon and subjective that this approach even make it to the
Making fixtures, keeping related things together and using processes for an
initiating clean state are best practices in Erlang. PropEr doesn't follow
those principles. Sentences like " the whole issue is about something which
is not functional in the first place" is not helping. "If you find it
disturbing, then simply write functional code." I would like to, but I
found this issue dealing with digraph module form OTP stdlib!
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Kostis Sagonas <> wrote:
> On 05/26/2015 08:02 PM, Hynek Vychodil wrote:
>> You just can't make simple and reliable clean up embedded in wrapper
>> macro or function. You always have to make explicit ugly procedural code
>> Objs = init(),
>> You simply can't make nice clean functional or function like wrapper. It
>> is ugly, repetitive, error-prone, procedural code. This is wrong.
> I will not comment on the "ugly", "repetitive", "error-prone" and "wrong"
> characterizations. As I wrote in my previous message these are not defined
> However, please realize that the whole issue is about something which is
> not functional in the first place! Under this prism, I am not very
> surprised you cannot, or at least find it difficult to, find a "clean
> functional" solution... I would even argue that it is better this way.
> (I.e., that there is a "penalty" for wanting to test non-functional code.
> If you find it disturbing, then simply write functional code.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions