I think it is necessary to avoid conflicts with RackUnit, namely the export of the check symbol. In the end, the only difference between check and quickcheck is the config argument. Therefore we could have a naming convention like:
quickcheck : the default quick config
quickcheck/config: the check that takes an explicit config.
Then in the yet-to-be-implemented quickcheck-rackunit integration package we can define check-property and check-property/config as suggested by @jackfirth
I think it is necessary to avoid conflicts with RackUnit, namely the export of the
check
symbol. In the end, the only difference betweencheck
andquickcheck
is theconfig
argument. Therefore we could have a naming convention like:quickcheck
: the defaultquick
configquickcheck/config
: the check that takes an explicit config.Then in the yet-to-be-implemented quickcheck-rackunit integration package we can define
check-property
andcheck-property/config
as suggested by @jackfirthWhat do you think?