Hi.
I would be grateful for any recommendations on a unit testing framework for
Common Lisp.
I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
Thankyou.
Tony
>I would be grateful for any recommendations on a
>unit testing framework for Common Lisp.
This is the unit test framework that Erlisp uses. Unfortunately,
common-lisp.net is experiencing technical difficulties at the moment.
You may want to wait a few days and continue your search when things
are working again.
http://common-lisp.net/project/bese/FiveAM.html
> I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
I tend to avoid these also, but I'm curious why it is a big issue for
you in this case. I don't remember FiveAM's license, and it's difficult
to check because common-lisp.net is down.
========================================
I checked www.cl-user.net for unit testing libraries and found one
called HEUTE (in the libraries and tools section). It uses the LLGPL
license, which is in the same spirit as the LGPL. I have never used
this library.
In article <······················@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Lavigne <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I would be grateful for any recommendations on a
> >unit testing framework for Common Lisp.
>
> This is the unit test framework that Erlisp uses. Unfortunately,
> common-lisp.net is experiencing technical difficulties at the moment.
> You may want to wait a few days and continue your search when things
> are working again.
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/bese/FiveAM.html
I've also found fiveam to be powerful and succinct - I'd recommend it as
well.
> > I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
>
> I tend to avoid these also, but I'm curious why it is a big issue for
> you in this case. I don't remember FiveAM's license, and it's difficult
> to check because common-lisp.net is down.
It's BSD licensed.
-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>
Tony wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I would be grateful for any recommendations on a unit testing framework for
> Common Lisp.
>
> I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
GPL I can understand avoiding, but why are you avoiding the LGPL? Are
you planning on distributing a modified version of the unit testing
framework?
-- MJF
M Jared Finder <·····@hpalace.com> writes:
> Tony wrote:
>> Hi.
>> I would be grateful for any recommendations on a unit testing
>> framework for Common Lisp.
>> I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
>
> GPL I can understand avoiding, but why are you avoiding the LGPL? Are
> you planning on distributing a modified version of the unit testing
> framework?
If not, GPL would as valid as anything else. More actually than
commercial licenses!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'.
Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
assurance people in it's wake.
"Tony" <······@nowhere.com> writes:
> Hi.
>
> I would be grateful for any recommendations on a unit testing framework for
> Common Lisp.
>
> I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
I use RT, which is a very simple testing framework under an MIT
license. If you use sbcl, you can (require :sb-rt), otherwise check
out www.cliki.net/RT
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
On 2006-01-17, Tony <······@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I would be grateful for any recommendations on a unit testing
> framework for Common Lisp.
>
> I'm seeking something that isnt GPL or LGPL.
I like xlunit (http://www.cliki.net/xlunit). It's Lispy and close to
JUnit, with which I have more familiarity.
The license is, I believe, BSD:
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
> 3. Neither the name of the author nor the names of the contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
> software without specific prior written permission.
[Disclaimer elided]
Though I don't understand why you care about the license of your test
suite. Do you plan to release it?
-- Larry