On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something >> about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how >> things currently work and then make a test that will work when you >> make those additional assumptions (and then keep it running in drdr so >> you can tell when the assumptions get broken). > > > Doesn't this suggest deep down that Neil is trying to 'beat' > Racket and its implementation with his program? I think the > entire discussion (I didn't follow every detail) points to > something lacking about the language. -- Matthias
I think that Neil wants to formulate a test case that checks that his datastructure doesn't leak and is complaining about the lack of specification for what "If the garbage collector has proven" (quote from the docs) means. My experience with similar testing is that the level of specification is actually okay. I can't speak for finalizers (they are more complex) but weak boxes seem fine. Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
