[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] srfi-64: fix unused variable warnings
From: |
Aleix Conchillo Flaqué |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] srfi-64: fix unused variable warnings |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Apr 2021 23:13:25 -0700 |
Hi Maxime,
Thank you for your comments!
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:37 AM Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:
> For example, in:
>
> > (define (%test-comp2 comp x)
> > (syntax-case (list x (list (syntax quote) (%test-source-line2 x))
> > comp) ()
> > (((mac tname expected expr) line comp)
> > (syntax
> > - (let* ((r (test-runner-get))
> > - (name tname))
> > + (let ((r (test-runner-get)))
> > (test-result-alist! r (cons (cons 'test-name tname) line))
> > (%test-comp2body r comp expected expr))))
>
> I would keep the let* (but reverse the binding order), but change 'tname'
> with 'name' in the call to 'test-result-alist!', such that 'test-X' macros
> behave somewhat more like procedure calls (except for installing exeption
> handlers and having access to the s-expression of the code that will be run,
> of course). It's largely a matter of taste, though.
>
I've done this change. One thing I don't understand is the "reverse
the binding order", I've done it as suggested but is this change the
one you refer to as "matter of taste"?
> In any case, it is good that 'tname' is now evaluated only once, as per
> SRFI-64 (notice ***It is evaluated only once.*** (markup mine)):
>
> (test-assert [test-name] expression)
>
> This evaluates the expression. The test passes if the result is true;
> if the result is false, a test failure is reported. The test also fails
> if an exception is raised, assuming the implementation has a way to catch
> exceptions. How the failure is reported depends on the test runner
> environment.
> The test-name is a string that names the test case. (Though the test-name is
> a string literal in the examples, it is an expression. ***It is evaluated
> only once.***)
> It is used when reporting errors, and also when skipping tests, as described
> below.
> It is an error to invoke test-assert if there is no current test runner.
>
> (My suggestion would be to also evaluate 'test-name' at least once, even if
> there
> is no test runner, which seems a bit stricter than SRFI-64 demands, but seems
> like
> a nice property to have and easy to achieve.)
>
Yes, this makes sense. Thanks again for pointing that out.
> As this patch does not ‘merely’ fix a warnings, but fixes a bug, could you
> change
> the patch message accordingly? Something like
>
> srfi-64: fix double evaluation of test-name.
>
> perhaps?
>
Sounds good to me.
Best,
Aleix