On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 tests that are no longer valid, please let me know if you find 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. > If you have new examples that still apply to R7RS please send them to me. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
