Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
Hi, > I finally applied them and wrote the test cases by myself. Thanks a lot! > Thanks again for the patches, but please do write test cases next time. I will do that. Sorry for the delay - I've been quite busy lately, and basically all of my Guile mail has been sitting in my inbox waiting to be handled. (I also plan to, for instance, respond to your email about the PEG parser.) Noah
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
Hi, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Noah Lavine writes: > >> The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals. > > I applied this one, along with corresponding test cases. > > Can you please resubmit the remaining patches with test case(s) for > each, and each in a thread of its own? I finally applied them and wrote the test cases by myself. Thanks again for the patches, but please do write test cases next time. :-) Ludo’.
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
Hi, Thanks for looking into this! Noah Lavine writes: > The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals. I applied this one, along with corresponding test cases. Can you please resubmit the remaining patches with test case(s) for each, and each in a thread of its own? Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
And this fixes hexadecimal constants. Guile now parses all Sputnik
tests for numeric literals.
Noah
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> This parses decimal numbers with leading zeros correctly.
>
> Noah
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>> And this fixes an error that came because Unicode 00A0 (no-break
>> space) is supposed to be considered whitespace in ECMAScript.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>>> This patch fixes a lot of the "unexpected token: rbrace" errors that
>>> had been messing up the Sputnik test results. The issue was that Guile
>>> didn't allow functions with empty bodies.
>>>
>>> Noah
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Noah Lavine
>>> wrote:
Hello,
The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.
Noah
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Noah Lavine writes:
>
>> If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with
>> ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I
>> suspect that such a feature could be added easily.
>
> Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly.
>
> I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse
> script, which only tests the parser.
>
> python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log
>
> The result is impressive (full log attached):
>
> === Summary ===
> - Ran 5246 tests
> - Passed 4410 tests (84.1%)
> - Failed 836 tests (15.9%)
>
> Where the failed tests have
>
> - 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported)
> - 393 rbrace errors (see below)
> - 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below)
> - 159 remain to sort out
>
> The rbrace errors are from
>
> function test() {}
> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>
> function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } };
> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>
> I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many
> errors like
>
> Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";};
> // No applicable method for #< pput (6)> in call (pput
> // # toString #)
>
> I thought the tests won't run correctly without this.
>
> [1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
>
> Cheers,
> Kanru
> --
> A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good
> book is a crime.
> -- Gilbert Highet
>
>>>
>>
>
0001-Fix-Hex-Constants.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
This parses decimal numbers with leading zeros correctly.
Noah
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> And this fixes an error that came because Unicode 00A0 (no-break
> space) is supposed to be considered whitespace in ECMAScript.
>
> Noah
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>> This patch fixes a lot of the "unexpected token: rbrace" errors that
>> had been messing up the Sputnik test results. The issue was that Guile
>> didn't allow functions with empty bodies.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.
>>>
>>> Noah
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
Hi,
Noah Lavine writes:
> If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with
> ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I
> suspect that such a feature could be added easily.
Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly.
I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse
script, which only tests the parser.
python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log
The result is impressive (full log attached):
=== Summary ===
- Ran 5246 tests
- Passed 4410 tests (84.1%)
- Failed 836 tests (15.9%)
Where the failed tests have
- 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported)
- 393 rbrace errors (see below)
- 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below)
- 159 remain to sort out
The rbrace errors are from
function test() {}
// Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } };
// Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many
errors like
Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";};
// No applicable method for #< pput (6)> in call (pput
// # toString #)
I thought the tests won't run correctly without this.
[1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
Cheers,
Kanru
--
A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good
book is a crime.
-- Gilbert Highet
>>>
>>
>
0001-Parse-Decimal-Numbers.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
And this fixes an error that came because Unicode 00A0 (no-break
space) is supposed to be considered whitespace in ECMAScript.
Noah
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> This patch fixes a lot of the "unexpected token: rbrace" errors that
> had been messing up the Sputnik test results. The issue was that Guile
> didn't allow functions with empty bodies.
>
> Noah
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Noah Lavine writes:
>>>
If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with
ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I
suspect that such a feature could be added easily.
>>>
>>> Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly.
>>>
>>> I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse
>>> script, which only tests the parser.
>>>
>>> python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log
>>>
>>> The result is impressive (full log attached):
>>>
>>> === Summary ===
>>> - Ran 5246 tests
>>> - Passed 4410 tests (84.1%)
>>> - Failed 836 tests (15.9%)
>>>
>>> Where the failed tests have
>>>
>>> - 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported)
>>> - 393 rbrace errors (see below)
>>> - 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below)
>>> - 159 remain to sort out
>>>
>>> The rbrace errors are from
>>>
>>> function test() {}
>>> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>>>
>>> function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } };
>>> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>>>
>>> I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many
>>> errors like
>>>
>>> Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";};
>>> // No applicable method for #< pput (6)> in call (pput
>>> // # toString #)
>>>
>>> I thought the tests won't run correctly without this.
>>>
>>> [1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kanru
>>> --
>>> A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good
>>> book is a crime.
>>> -- Gilbert Highet
>>>
>>
>
0001-Ecmascript-Syntax.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
This patch fixes a lot of the "unexpected token: rbrace" errors that
had been messing up the Sputnik test results. The issue was that Guile
didn't allow functions with empty bodies.
Noah
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.
>
> Noah
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Noah Lavine writes:
>>
>>> If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with
>>> ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I
>>> suspect that such a feature could be added easily.
>>
>> Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly.
>>
>> I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse
>> script, which only tests the parser.
>>
>> python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log
>>
>> The result is impressive (full log attached):
>>
>> === Summary ===
>> - Ran 5246 tests
>> - Passed 4410 tests (84.1%)
>> - Failed 836 tests (15.9%)
>>
>> Where the failed tests have
>>
>> - 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported)
>> - 393 rbrace errors (see below)
>> - 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below)
>> - 159 remain to sort out
>>
>> The rbrace errors are from
>>
>> function test() {}
>> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>>
>> function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } };
>> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>>
>> I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many
>> errors like
>>
>> Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";};
>> // No applicable method for #< pput (6)> in call (pput
>> // # toString #)
>>
>> I thought the tests won't run correctly without this.
>>
>> [1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kanru
>> --
>> A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good
>> book is a crime.
>> -- Gilbert Highet
>>
>
0001-Ecmascript-Syntax-Fix.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: Sputnik test result (was Re: ECMAScript support broken?)
Hello,
The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.
Noah
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Noah Lavine writes:
>
>> If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with
>> ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I
>> suspect that such a feature could be added easily.
>
> Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly.
>
> I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse
> script, which only tests the parser.
>
> python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log
>
> The result is impressive (full log attached):
>
> === Summary ===
> - Ran 5246 tests
> - Passed 4410 tests (84.1%)
> - Failed 836 tests (15.9%)
>
> Where the failed tests have
>
> - 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported)
> - 393 rbrace errors (see below)
> - 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below)
> - 159 remain to sort out
>
> The rbrace errors are from
>
> function test() {}
> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>
> function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } };
> // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace
>
> I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many
> errors like
>
> Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";};
> // No applicable method for #< pput (6)> in call (pput
> // # toString #)
>
> I thought the tests won't run correctly without this.
>
> [1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
>
> Cheers,
> Kanru
> --
> A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good
> book is a crime.
> -- Gilbert Highet
>
0001-ECMAScript-Unicode-Literals.patch
Description: Binary data
