Hi Maxime,
Maxime Devos writes:
>>> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
>>
>>That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
>>things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
>>the current implementation in Guix does.
>
> I assume Gu
Taylan Kammer writes:
Hi,
sorry for taking so long to respond to your comments, work has been bit
busy lately. I really appreciate you looking at them and validating
and/or challenging my conclusions.
> On 30.07.2024 21:51, Tomas Volf wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think I found a bug in (srfi srfi-
The bundled (reference) implementation was of somewhat mixed quality and
it failed to follow standard in multiple places. This commit replaces
it with a new one, written from scratch to follow the standard as close
as possible.
* module/srfi/srfi-64/testing.scm: Delete file.
* module/srfi/srfi-64
Taylan Kammer writes:
Hi,
> On 30.07.2024 21:51, Tomas Volf wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think I found a bug in (srfi srfi-64) module shipped with GNU Guile.
>>
>> The specification says the following about the test-end:
>>
>>> An error is reported if the suite-name does not match the current test g
On 02.10.2024 14:28, Tomas Volf wrote:
> Taylan Kammer writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry for taking so long to respond to your comments, work has been bit
> busy lately.
I took two months whereas you took two days, so I'm not going to complain. :D
>> On 30.07.2024 21:51, Tomas Volf wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>
Taylan Kammer writes:
> Do I understand correctly that this is an additional test suite for
> testing SRFI-64 itself? Like the "meta test suite" shipped with
> SRFI-64?
Yes, exactly. Vast majority of the tests are just derived from the
specification, with few non-portable written just for my im
On 02.10.2024 21:57, Tomas Volf wrote:
> Let me know what you think (either here or in #72365 ^_^ ).
>
> Tomas
Sure thing! Responded in the other thread.
- Taylan
