are there any documentation on clojure built-in java method?
for example, .toUpperCase from java.lang.String and .indexOf from clojure.lang.PersistantVector.
Is there anyway I can find useful java method without looking at the source code?
As others have pointed out, you can get the java.* and javax.* documentation online pretty easily as it is part of core Java.
For the clojure.*, your best reference is the source. Even so, I'd recommend not relying on it since this code should really be considered an implementation detail of Clojure. You have no guarantee that the functionality won't change in future versions of Clojure and break any code that depends on it.
How about the Java API? All of Java's classes and methods are listed there. That covers all of the "clojure built-in java methods".
On the other hand, Clojure's classes are documented in here, Clojure's API. You have to learn to distinguish between Clojure's classes and Java's classes. All packages starting with java.* or javax.* belong to Java and are documented in the first link. The packages starting with clojure.* are from Clojure, you'll find their documentation in the second link.
If the package for the class starts with java or javax then you can look it up in the Java documentation on Oracle's website.
For Clojure implementation classes (where the package name starts with clojure) you are probably stuck with looking at the source code. There is documentation for the intended API (the Clojure language) but not for the Java classes implementing it. You may be able to find some articles (like this one) depending on if what you're looking for is something a blogger has taken an interest in.
My question is NOT about how to use ClojureScript to produce JavaScript code.
I am interested in ClojureScript because it implements Clojure \ {eval} within Clojure, and is able to compile it to another language. Thus, I'm interested in the possibility of having ClojureScript target other platforms.
Question: besides the source code, is the Design & Implementation of ClojureScript documented anywhere? I'd like a high level overview of how the various parts of the compiler work together:
* how are the
As far as the documentation for "Clojurescript pipeline and how you can hook into it" is concerned you can check out this blog entry.
A company asked me to program a GIT wrapper for them.
The people there have absolute no versioning systems experience, but it will be incorporated in their daily routine eventually (through my program).
I'm planning on using VC++ to create a tiny windows applet that will help ppl in this process. Any thoughts on that?
What about a Deamon process checking if people want to commit/push their files?
For almost (but not all!) use cases, libgit2 is the easiest way to interact with Git repositories via code.
Git already has two layers: The plumbing (which you may be interested in) on top of which is built the primary porcelain which provides the user interface. If you want to implement something like git-commit but with slightly different semantics all of the underlying programs like git-write-tree and git-rev-parse are there for you to build on.
See also What does the term "porcelain" mean in Git?
There's already TortoiseGit, among other "friendly" interfaces. Don't re-invent the wheel, start by researching what's already available.
In order to easier the search for documentation hereafter the link to the official. It's about the plumbing and porcelain:
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Plumbing-and-Porcelain
I'm reading "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable OOSW". In chapter two, the authors provide a case study of an editor they refer to as Lexi, which seems to be written in C++. I've looked around everywhere, but the only useful link I could find said this:
The Gof tell us in a note that Lexi is
based on "Doc, a text editing
application developed by Calder". But
this paper only outlines an editor,
without any source. And I even believe
today that Lexi never truly existed as
a program.
The link provides Delphi source. I'm after C++, cause that's what I'm comfortable with, and that's what's used in the book.
Does anybody know where I can find C++ source for Lexi? If the original never existed, it would be good to find something that I can use as a base. I really don't feel like writing my own text editor from scratch just so I can work through the case study in this book.
Doc was developed using the InterViews UI toolkit. I believe that doc source is part of the InterViews distribution. Doc was used to typeset Paul's thesis. (Paul Calder was my lecturer at Flinders University)
If you look at the InterViews code you might be surprised. It was developed before modern C++ existed. For example, there are no templates. And there are no comments in the code.
To my understanding, Lexi never existed. It was created as an example for the book by GoF.
Maybe a Java implementation can help, being it more similar to c++. Here it is:
jexieditor - A WYSIWYG editor based on JavaSE. I have not had a look at the code yet, anyway
I may be showing my age here but are you sure about C++? I have a funny feeling that when that book came out originally it may have been oriented toward Smalltalk. Its just something nagging at the back of my mind, I can't substantiate it I'm afraid
I'm currently implementing Lexi analog, pls take a look https://github.com/romaonishuk/LexI. Implementation is still in progress, but most of the described in GoF patterns and concepts are implemented using C++.
This is the code source of LEXI, written in Delphi unfortunately for you: LEXI sources.
It appears that the source code might be on the CD-ROM version of Design Patterns that came out in 1998. According to the Amazon listing, the CD contains (among other things):
Sample code demonstrating pattern implementation
Furthermore,
All patterns are compiled from real-world examples and include code that demonstrates how they may be implemented in object-oriented programming languages such as C++ and Smalltalk. Readers who already own the book will want the CD to take advantage of its dynamic search mechanism and ready-to-install patterns.
Whether these code samples include the full Lexi source is impossible to tell from the listing, and the current price of the CD (£86.87) is rather high. But it might be worth checking if any local libraries have the CD in stock.
I was just trying to find out if a real working Lexi version exists, to have a concrete reference, but I didn't find it.
I found this Java version on GitHub: https://github.com/AmitDutta/lexi
I don't know, maybe it could be useful for someone's purpose here.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a book, tool, software library, tutorial or other off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I use the Boost Test framework for my C++ code but there are two problems with it that are probably common to all C++ test frameworks:
There is no way to create automatic test stubs (by extracting public functions from selected classes for example).
You cannot run a single test - you have to run the entire 'suite' of tests (unless you create lots of different test projects I guess).
Does anyone know of a better testing framework or am I forever to be jealous of the test tools available to Java/.NET developers?
I've just pushed my own framework, CATCH, out there. It's still under development but I believe it already surpasses most other frameworks.
Different people have different criteria but I've tried to cover most ground without too many trade-offs.
Take a look at my linked blog entry for a taster. My top five features are:
Header only
Auto registration of function and method based tests
Decomposes standard C++ expressions into LHS and RHS (so you don't need a whole family of assert macros).
Support for nested sections within a function based fixture
Name tests using natural language - function/ method names are generated
It doesn't do generation of stubs - but that's a fairly specialised area. I think Isolator++ is the first tool to truly pull that off. Note that Mocking/ stubbing frameworks are usually independent of unit testing frameworks. CATCH works particularly well with mock objects as test state is not passed around by context.
It also has Objective-C bindings.
[update]
Just happened back across this answer of mine from a few years ago. Thanks for all the great comments!
Obviously Catch has developed on a lot in that time. It now has support for BDD style testing (given/ when/ then), tags, now in a single header, and loads of internal improvements and refinements (e.g. richer command line, clear and expressive output etc). A more up-to-date blog post is here.
Take a look at the Google C++ Testing Framework.
It's used by Google for all of their in-house C++ projects, so it must be pretty good.
http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/07/announcing-new-google-c-testing.html
http://code.google.com/p/googletest
Boost.Test does allow to run test case by name. Or test suite. Or several of them.
Boost.Test does NOT insists on implementing main, though it does make it easy to do so.
Boost.Test is NOT necessary to use as a library. It has single header variant.
I just responded to a very similar question. I ended up using Noel Llopis' UnitTest++. I liked it more than boost::test because it didn't insist on implementing the main program of the test harness with a macro - it can plug into whatever executable you create. It does suffer from the same encumbrance of boost::test in that it requires a library to be linked in. I've used CxxTest, and it does come closer than anything else in C++-land to automatically generating tests (though it requires Perl to be part of your build system to do this). C++ just does not provide the reflection hooks that the .NET languages and Java do. The MsTest tools in Visual Studio Team System - Developer's Edition will auto-generate test stubs of unmanaged C++, but the methods have to be exported from a DLL to do this, so it does not work with static libraries. Other test frameworks in the .NET world may have this ability too, but I'm not familiar with any of those. So right now we use UnitTest++ for unmanaged C++ and I'm currently deciding between MsTest and NUnit for the managed libraries.
I'm a big fan of UnitTest++, it's very lightweight, but does the job. You can run single tests there easily.
Great question! A few years ago I looked around forever for something worth using and came up short. I was looking for something that was very lightweight and did not require me to link in some libraries... you know something I could get up and running in minutes.
However, I persisted and ended up running across cxxtest.
From the website:
Doesn't require RTTI
Doesn't require member template functions
Doesn't require exception handling
Doesn't require any external libraries (including memory management, file/console I/O, graphics libraries)
Is distributed entirely as a set of header files (and a python script).
Wow... super simple! Include a header file, derive from the Test class and you're off and running. We've been using this for the past four years and I've still yet to find anything that I'm more pleased with.
Try WinUnit. It sounds excellent, and is recommended by John Robbins.
I like the Boost unit test framework, principally because it is very lightweight.
I never heard of a unit-test framework that would generate stubs. I am generally quite unconvinced by code generation, if only because it gets obsolete very quickly. Maybe it becomes useful when you have a large number of classes?
A proponent of Test Driven Development would probably say that it is fundamental that you run the whole test suite every time, as to make sure that you have not introduced a regression. If running all the tests take too much time, maybe your tests are too big, or make too many calls to CPU intensive functions that should be mocked out? If it remains a problem, a thin wrapper around the boost unit-tests should allow you to pick your tests, and would probably be quicker than learn another framework and port all your tests.
http://groups.google.com/group/googletestframework, but it's pretty new
I'm using tut-framework
Aeryn is another framework worth looking at
Visual Studio has a built-in unit testing framework, this is a great link to setting up a test project for win32 console application:
http://codeketchup.blogspot.ie/2012/12/unit-test-for-unmanaged-c-in-visual.html
If you are working on a static DLL project it is much easier to set up as other have pointed out external tesing frameworks like GTest and Boost have extra features.
CppUnit was the original homage to JUnit.
Eclipse/JUnit is a solid package for java, and there are C++ extensions/equivalents for both. It can do what you're talking about. Of course, you'd have to change IDEs...
I too am a fan of UnitTest++.
The snag is that the source distribution contains almost 40 seperate files. This is absurd. Managing the source control and build tasks for a simple project is dominated by looking after all these unit testing files.
I have modified UnitTest++ so that it can be integrated with a project by adding one .h and .cpp file. This I have dubbed "cutest". Details are at http://ravenspoint.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080704-063557
It does not automatically generate test stubs, as asked for in the original question. I cannot help thinking that such a feature would be more trouble than it is worth, generating vast amounts of useless code "testing" accessor functions.
I would imagine automatically stubbing out test functions would be more of a function (of scripts for the framework or) the development environment in question. Supposedly CodeGear's C++Builder applications will quickly generate test code for user functions.
Andrew Marlow's Fructose library's worth checking out... http://fructose.sourceforge.net/
I recall his documents containing a fairly detailed analysis and comparison of other offering at the time he wrote Fructose, but can't find a URL direct to that document.
I'm trying out Igloo, also a header only C++ test suite, even it's two included dependencies are header only.
So, it's pretty straightforward and simple. Besides the included example on github, there's examples and more details at the main site, igloo-testing.org. I'll update this later as I get more experience with it and other frameworks.