C++ guys hate static_if?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:26:54PM +0100, bearophile wrote:
[[...]
> And 100% code coverage is not enough even for regular code, that's why
> they have invented this for Java:
> 
> http://dev.theladders.com/2013/02/mutation-testing-with-pit-a-step-beyond-normal-code-coverage/
[...]

We need this in D. I want this in D. :)

Recently, while writing a new D module, the thought occurred to me that
perhaps my unittests aren't enough. Sure, it's good to have tons of
unittests, but how effective are they? Do they really fail when I think
they should, or do they just silently pass anyway when a bug is
introduced?

This paper answered that question for me. :)

I think maybe the dustmite code can be adapted to do mutation testing,
esp. the part that identifies what can be deleted from the code? I'm not
sure exactly how dustmite identifies declarations/statements to be
deleted, but that could be a start on doing mutation testing.


T

-- 
Why can't you just be a nonconformist like everyone else? -- YHL