|
From: | Kon Lovett |
Subject: | Re: [Chicken-users] test-infrastructure update (1.2) |
Date: | Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:01:08 -0800 |
Just to let you know, I had realized that after I finished the codebase, I was well on my way to implementing a full dialect of scheme where basically all of the primitive forms had analog macro implementations which trackedeverything you were trying to do--like test-let and things of that nature.
So an arbitrary Scheme source would be processed by the hypothetical 'test-compiler' (compiles Scheme -> Test-Scheme)? How would the expected result be specified?
Or is it arbitrary? Are the parallel special forms to be used directly? Like (test-let <expected> ([...] ...) ...), where each test version of an expression has extra test attributes?
<snip>
(the higher order function to produce the various kinds of output given the tree structure to this day I think is a perfect solution)
<snip>I may chg the various tree-node representations into record- structures, for a slight speed-up. No visible API chg though. ("may chg" since they would need to be srfi-9 records as Chicken records are not common.)
Thank you for your contribution, I very much appreciate it.
Your welcome. I committed a new release so it should be available soon. Has the TBD I mentioned earlier. I do plan to add Chicken compiler declarations to restrict the exported names, but this isn't a visible chg.
-pete
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |