At Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:33:59 +0900, Philipp Meier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:35:32AM +0900, GOTO Kentaro wrote:
> 
> > There is another story if `require' is put in def statement.  Inside
> > of def would not be evaluated until the method is invoked.  So require
> > in def can postpone loading a library file until really needed.  That
> > may improve average performance in some cases.
> 
> ...and make debugging harder. But aren't we all doing unit testing? :)

:)

By the way, unit testing is big fun but useful only if that testing is
done thoroughgoingly.  For example, a bug by require-in-def would be
missed detecting if the method is skipped in a test.  Now, I wrote a
coverage testrunner, subclass of Test::Unit::UI::CONSOLE::TestRunner:
http://www.notwork.org/~gotoken/ruby/p/as-is/testrunner_coverage.rb
This is very ad hoc one but I found some missing tests by this toy.
Test first? I know I know... but I often forget it ;)
More sophisticated coverage test may help the unit test to complete? (#)

(#) NaHi told me this idea, not mine.