I think the current behavior of check-expect is unfortunate w.r.t. errors that occur during the evaluation of the "expected" values.
Consider this program: (check-expect (+ 3 4) 7) (check-expect (* 4 5) 20) (check-expect (+ 4 9) (/ 1 0)) (check-expect (+ 2 3) 5) It produces this output in intermediate: /: division by zero Both tests passed! In the example given, it's pretty clear that something major went wrong. If you have thirty or forty test cases, though, this can look a lot like success. I propose one of the following two solutions; I think the first is less work than the second. 1) keep a flag around during evaluation that records whether an exception has occurred during the evaluation of an 'expected' value, and update the report accordingly, e.g.: 2 tests passed. Some tests failed to run! (could be better, I know.) 2) Record this as a test failure, and continue running the tests. This would mean adding a new kind of test failure message. Actually, this might not be too much work, either. Thoughts? John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
