I've attached diff of 2007 testing.scm. 2012/4/21 Per Bothner <p...@bothner.com> > > I'm going to look at the patch in detail, but before I do, a question: > Why is your srfi-64.scm.gz "for Guile, Chicken and Gambit" so very > different from the reference implementation with your patch applied? >
I just mean that I had tested my srfi-64.scm on Guile, Chicken and Gambit. srfi-64.scm pass the srfi-64-test.scm on Guile and Chicken. There is only one fail on Gambit and I suspect dynamic-wind bug of Gambit is cause of that. The patched testing.scm pass the srfi-64-test.scm on Guile. But I'm not sure it to pass the srfi-64-test.scm on Chicken or Gambit. You mention "the order and style of definitions". Could you be more > specific? I can certainly re-order definitions if that will help, > but I'd like to understand why. And I'd prefer to re-order them myself. > For example: "macro x needs to be moved before function y because of z". > For on Guile, test-with-runner should be defined before test-apply because test-apply use test-with-runner. I saw compile errors when I compiled my srfi-64.scm on Chicken. Of course, srfi-64.scm had passed the srfi-64-test.scm on Guile but can't be compiled then. So, I re-ordered definitions in srfi-64.scm and make it pass. > And what is the problem with the "style"? A module issue? > No, style is not a problem; style is just style. Humm... like these; test-result-ref is a procedure in srfi-64.scm but a macro in testing.scm. test-match-any, test-match-all, test-skip, test-expect-fail and %test-should-execute are defined #f and set! later. test-on-final-simple has return value. and so on...
testing.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
