Hi Marius, Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> skribis:
> Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes: > >> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> Also it would be nice to add a tiny test close to the one that >>> 24ab804ce11fe12ff49cd144a3d9c4bfcf55b41c added. >> >> Good idea. I came up with this: >> >> diff --git a/tests/gexp.scm b/tests/gexp.scm >> index 84c16422c2..8b1596f66d 100644 >> --- a/tests/gexp.scm >> +++ b/tests/gexp.scm >> @@ -886,6 +886,12 @@ >> (run-with-store %store >> (lower-gexp #~(foo #$+))))) >> >> +(test-equal "lower-gexp, character literal" >> + '(#\+) >> + (lowered-gexp-sexp >> + (run-with-store %store >> + (lower-gexp #~(#\+))))) >> + >> (test-assertm "gexp->derivation #:references-graphs" >> (mlet* %store-monad >> ((one (text-file "one" (random-text))) >> >> WDYT? > > I ended up pushing this in ab7010af1f1077c056529769a53a380147c3933f, > even though I suspect there is an easier test that could reveal this > problem without involving the store, somewhere. Improvements welcome. We could have called ‘gexp->sexp’ directly, but we’d still need the store anyway, so IMO that’s good! Thanks, Ludo’.
