Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: >> Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>> This does introduce some "noise" to the tests because it uses srfi-64 >> which writes to standard output by default. I imagine we might want to >> add a test-suite/lib specific srfi-64 reporter at some point. (Perhaps >> I'll look in to that later.) > > That would be a good idea. Or perhaps even use SRFI 64 for our test > suite, so that our SRFI 64 implementation is properly dog fooded and > self-documented via its use in the test suite. I've investigated the latter, but it looked like that may require notable work, given, for example, the fact that (test-suite lib) is more expressive than SRFI-64 (e.g. it allows throwing exceptions to indicate outcomes, and has more potential outcomes). So for now I've attempted to just allow us to mix and match SRFI-64 and (test-suite lib) based tests by integrating SRFI-64 into the existing automake/check-guile arrangement via a suitable test driver. In the current rough draft, SRFI-64 tests can be added by naming them *.sr64 and adding them to SCM_TESTS in test-suite/Makefile.am. I've incorporated those changes into a new version of the SRFI-197 series here (see the "test-suite: support SRFI-64 based tests" commit): https://codeberg.org/rlb/guile/src/branch/srfi-197 Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
