[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Use more descriptive names in typematch-tests.scm

2018-03-30 Thread megane
Hello, while I was reading the file I decided to refactor the tests a bit. The macro checkp wasn't quite doing what it was supposed to. Checkp tests that predicates work. The statement (checkp PRED TYPE VALUE) tries to assert that in a branch where (PRED VALUE) is true the type of VALUE is TYPE

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Use more descriptive names in typematch-tests.scm

2018-04-26 Thread Evan Hanson
Hi megane, On 2018-03-30 10:55, megane wrote: > while I was reading the file I decided to refactor the tests a bit. I like this, it's much more clear. > The macro checkp wasn't quite doing what it was supposed to. > > Checkp tests that predicates work. The statement (checkp PRED TYPE > VALUE) t

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Use more descriptive names in typematch-tests.scm

2018-06-09 Thread Evan Hanson
On 2018-04-26 16:25, Evan Hanson wrote: > On 2018-03-30 10:55, megane wrote: > > while I was reading the file I decided to refactor the tests a bit. > > Signed-off version attached. Could someone please have a look at this? It's a clear improvement and only changes the tests. Cheers, Evan

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Use more descriptive names in typematch-tests.scm

2018-06-11 Thread Peter Bex
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:12:03AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > On 2018-04-26 16:25, Evan Hanson wrote: > > On 2018-03-30 10:55, megane wrote: > > > while I was reading the file I decided to refactor the tests a bit. > > > > Signed-off version attached. > > Could someone please have a look at this