Donovan Kolbly wrote:
> Although, that doesn't work if we allow the semantics of
> "test-result-set!".  If something like that is needed, then the
> abstraction is preferable.

I don't think that test-result-set! and test-result-clear need to be
part of the API - I suspect only the implementation needs them.
test-result-get would be needed in a test-runner - and possibly
in a test-suite (or at least something like test-passed?).

> I'd even prefer clarifying when you can call a mutator: by default, I
> wouldn't allow side-effects except in the extent of a custom runner hook
> (as set with test-runner-on-test!), because I may want to export the
> results out of the system when the custom runner completes.

Right.  I guess I could see a custom hook wanting to add extra information
(annotations), though I don't have a use case for that in mind.  I doubt
there'd be any use for modifying existing result properties.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/