Re: [racket-dev] tests not being run?

2013-09-05 Thread Jay McCarthy 
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Vanderson
david.vander...@gmail.comwrote:

  I totally missed pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-test/tests/run-automated-tests.rkt,
 but it looks like DrDr is running that with 'mzc -k _' - doesn't that just
 compile it?


Yes, the intention there is to run the tests individually but test that the
all runner works



 There is also a file/main.rkt that runs all the file/ tests, but that file
 doesn't show up in DrDr.


That means that it is disabled, probably because it was intended to just
run each file separately



 I'm more confused now.  Does DrDr automatically run a main.rkt file if
 it's present?


Whether DrDr runs a file is different on a file-by-file basis via the props
database. For this file...




 Thanks,
 Dave

  On 09/04/2013 01:58 PM, Robby Findler wrote:

 I think it makes more sense to change those 'main' modules into 'test'
 modules, but I'm not positive.

  Robby


  On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:26 PM, David Vanderson 
 david.vander...@gmail.com wrote:

 It looks to me like most of the tests in
 racket/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-test/tests/file/* are not being run by DrDr.
  I think DrDr is running them with 'raco test _' while the files mostly
 need to be run as 'racket _'.

 Am I missing something?  If not, should I fix the files to be run with
 'raco test _'?

 Thanks,
 Dave
 _
  Racket Developers list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev




 _
   Racket Developers list:
   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev




-- 
Jay McCarthy j...@cs.byu.edu
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay

The glory of God is Intelligence - DC 93
_
  Racket Developers list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

[racket-dev] provide expand-clause in racket/private/for.rkt

2013-09-05 Thread Stephen Chang 
Hi dev,

I would like to provide (for-syntax) the expand-clause function in
racket/private/for.rkt. Would this cause any problems? Would anyone
object to this?

I have an implementation of for/X in my generic-bind library that uses
expand-clause and with it, the generic-bind ~for forms are as fast,
sometimes a little faster, than racket's for/X in some preliminary
testing. (Without access to expand-clause, sequence traversal is slow
--- the current planet-available version of my library uses
sequence-generate and is twice as slow.)

The sometimes a little faster is likely in part due to less
error-checking, but my implementation passes all the for/X unit tests
and so as is, it can reasonably be used in place of for/X.
_
  Racket Developers list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev