On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 08:34:41AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: > On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Having test-numeric-syntaxes take a long list of tests makes it > > more difficult to deal with individual tests, in terms of > > debugging or marking them as expected failures. > > This was adapted largely as-is from Peter Bex's numeric test > suite for R5RS, pruning a lot. Possibly I overlooked some > tests that are no longer valid, please let me know if you find > any. > > Converting to a single test-numeric-syntax macro would > indeed be better. Patches welcome :)
I agree. When I wrote the tests, I was largely concerned with getting the correct syntax to work for CHICKEN. Based on the advice of some others, I've added more input/output examples, but it's going to be very hard to get complete coverage of all possibilities. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
