Programming languages enthusiast. Author of Learn Type Driven Development: https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/learn-type-driven-development
Yes–apply the signature to the module at its point of use, not its point of definition. This keeps the module definition as general as possible but you can expose different facets of the module to different consumers.
Personally I don't recommend that, however. I think that unit tests should test using the exact same interface that's exposed in production. They shouldn't become deeply coupled to implementation details, because that leads to fragile tests.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Do you know if there's a way of telling the compiler which interface file to use depending on the environment? For example:
This is one of the things I miss most from Rust
Yes–apply the signature to the module at its point of use, not its point of definition. This keeps the module definition as general as possible but you can expose different facets of the module to different consumers.
Personally I don't recommend that, however. I think that unit tests should test using the exact same interface that's exposed in production. They shouldn't become deeply coupled to implementation details, because that leads to fragile tests.