On 8/20/20 12:31 PM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> It would be nice if Per Bothner could chime in here. I put him in CC.

I just noticed the discussion.  (I get so much SRFI/Scheme email
these days that I mostly just delete them, unless something catches my eye.)

Basically, I agree with everything you (Marc) said so far.

I am not opposed to defining a pared-down minimal subset of SRFI-64
(except I would hate to leave out test-begin/test-end); however, I'm not
convinced there is any point.

On 8/20/20 12:17 PM, Lassi Kortela wrote:
> Whatever the reasons, a full-featured test definition framework is much simpler than a full-featured test runner.

The API might be simpler if you leave out the test runner framework,
but I don't think you save a lot of code: Most of the code of the
SRFI 64 implementation is a fairly simple (though attempting to be "full-featured")
test definition framework.  Adding the hooks and API of the test runner framework
mostly adds some extra indirection (a simple ad hoc implementation-and-interface system)
so you can run the same test-suites on alternative frameworks.
(Primarily customizing how tests results are displayed and/or summarized.)
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/