On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 08:34:41AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
> > Having test-numeric-syntaxes take a long list of tests makes it
> > more difficult to deal with individual tests, in terms of
> > debugging or marking them as expected failures.
>
> This was adapted largely as-is from Peter Bex's numeric test
> suite for R5RS, pruning a lot.  Possibly I overlooked some
> tests that are no longer valid, please let me know if you find
> any.
>
> Converting to a single test-numeric-syntax macro would
> indeed be better.  Patches welcome :)

I agree.  When I wrote the tests, I was largely concerned with getting
the correct syntax to work for CHICKEN.  Based on the advice of some
others, I've added more input/output examples, but it's going to be
very hard to get complete coverage of all possibilities.

Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports