Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 15:12 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 15:15 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Peter Bex (26 Jan 2020 16:51 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 17:13 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 17:25 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 18:48 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 19:28 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 20:01 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 20:22 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Per Bothner (26 Jan 2020 19:33 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 19:49 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Per Bothner (26 Jan 2020 20:03 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 20:11 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Per Bothner (26 Jan 2020 20:22 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Lassi Kortela (26 Jan 2020 20:31 UTC)
Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Arthur A. Gleckler (26 Jan 2020 17:50 UTC)

Re: Gathering comprehensive SRFI test suites in one place Peter Bex 26 Jan 2020 16:51 UTC
On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 05:15:15PM +0200, Lassi Kortela wrote:
> Also, if someone wants to help me gather more tests, I don't have any
> preference for which unit test framework to use. We should pick one by
> consensus and make sure it is ported to all Schemes.

This is something I would be interested in.  I'm reasonably happy with
the "test" egg in CHICKEN and it's simple, but its implementation is
kinda messy and reporting is not so easily customizable (that I know of).

Having a portable test system would really ease cross-Scheme development,
and would make it easier to take tests from other Schemes for their basic
functionality.

It would also ease automated CI across Schemes, for example.

> R6RS vs R7RS support is worth thinking about as well. Do we need to use a
> code generator to convert one to the other? IIRC R6RS doesn't have a
> standard (include ...) mechanism.

I personally don't care about R6RS.  But why is "include" needed?

Cheers,
Peter