[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: procedural interface

Alex Shinn wrote:
It seems like the only forms which need to be macros are


because they need to delay/skip evalutation of the test form and setup
appropriate error handlers.

test-group and test-group-with-cleanup also need to be macros,
because they can also be skipped.

test-with-runner also needs to be a macro, but it's a convenience
form, not primitive.

What if we define and expose test-thunk:

  --procedure: test-thunk [name] thunk

which does the same as test-assert but takes a thunk which it
evaluates when it is run.  Then the above macros could just be
convenience wrappers around this.

I think that works and seems to make sense.

Even if we don't expose a procedural interface the SRFI should specify
that the test-name is evaluated at runtime, for use with data driven
tests (I agree the name should be a string).

I.e. the specification should clarify that the test-name
is an expression that evaluates to string, not necessarily
a string literal?
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/