Sorry, forgot to attach.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:56:59 -0400, Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us>
wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:28:46 -0400, Peter Bex <Peter.Bex@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> Outputs of other Schemes would be interesting to see as well, and
>> suggestions for new testcases are welcome too!
>
> I have attached the results for Chez Scheme 8.3 (R6RS). I had to make
> some
> basic modifications to the prelude, but I also had to change the test in
> the macro (and res (nan? res) ...) to (and (real? res) (nan? res) ...)
> because Chez Scheme's NAN? only accepts REAL? values.
>
> There were 18 errors in total, all of them, as far as I can see, relating
> to accepting prefix based numbers that the test says should error out.
> I'm
> not sure I would argue that this is a bad thing.
>
>> As you can see from the outputs, the "errors" in these Schemes are
>> mostly
>> related to padding syntax, and especially such gems like "#x1#+1#i" or
>> "#e1#/2".  Surprisingly, there's also lots of errors related to allowing
>> the decimal syntax for bases other than 10 (especially in Racket).
>
> Chez doesn't appear to have any errors related to the padding, but it
> does
> exhibit the same flexibility that Racket has regarding these decimal
> syntaxes.
>
> 	Aaron W. Hsu
>

--
Programming is just another word for the lost Art of Thinking.

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