mirror of
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git
synced 2025-06-23 20:05:32 +02:00
5f1611640a
* libguile/eval.c (scm_primitive_eval, scm_c_primitive_eval):
(scm_init_eval): Rework so that scm_primitive_eval always calls out to
the primitive-eval variable. The previous definition is the default
value, which is probably overridden by scm_init_eval_in_scheme.
* libguile/init.c (scm_i_init_guile): Move ports and load-path up, so we
can debug when initing eval. Call scm_init_eval_in_scheme. Awesome.
* libguile/load.h:
* libguile/load.c (scm_init_eval_in_scheme): New procedure, loads up
ice-9/eval.scm to replace the primitive-eval definition, if everything
is there and up-to-date.
* libguile/modules.c (scm_module_transformer): Export to Scheme, so it's
there for eval.go.
* module/ice-9/boot-9.scm: No need to define module-transformer.
* module/ice-9/eval.scm (capture-env): Only reference the-root-module if
modules are booted.
(primitive-eval): Inline a definition for identity. Throw a more
standard error for "wrong number of arguments".
* module/ice-9/psyntax.scm (chi-install-global): The macro binding for a
syncase macro is now a pair: the transformer, and the module that was
current when the transformer was installed. The latter is used for
hygiene purposes, replacing the use of procedure-module, which didn't
work with the interpreter's shared-code closures.
(chi-macro): Adapt for the binding being a pair, and get the hygiene
from the cdr.
(eval-local-transformer): Adapt to new form of macro bindings.
* module/ice-9/psyntax-pp.scm: Regenerated.
* .gitignore: Ignore eval.go.stamp.
* module/Makefile.am: Reorder for fastest serial compilation, now that
there are no ordering constraints. I did a number of experiments here
and this seems to be the best; but the bulk of the time is compiling
psyntax-pp.scm with eval.scm. Not so great.
* libguile/vm-engine.c (vm-engine): Throw a more standard error for
"wrong type to apply".
* test-suite/tests/gc.test ("gc"): Remove a hack that shouldn't affect
the new evaluator, and throw in another (gc) for good measure.
* test-suite/tests/goops.test ("defining classes"):
* test-suite/tests/hooks.test (proc1): We can't currently check what the
arity is of a closure made by eval.scm -- or more accurately all
closures have 0 required args and no rest args. So punt for now.
* test-suite/tests/syntax.test ("letrec"): The scheme evaluator can't
check that a variable is unbound, currently; perhaps the full "fixing
letrec" expansion could fix this. But barring that, punt.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| standalone | ||
| tests | ||
| ChangeLog-2008 | ||
| guile-test | ||
| lib.scm | ||
| Makefile.am | ||
| README | ||
This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test support code. To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than 15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9 getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then. For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script. You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module (test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each function explaining what's going on. Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org. We'll merge them into the distribution. All test suites must be licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to collect assignment papers for them. Some test suite philosophy: GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests. Every time the test suite catches a bug, it's great. GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't have time. You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it doesn't cause any regressions." The subtext is, I made a change that looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be okay. I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of why their changes are correct. The problem is that any test suite is woefully incomplete. Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find. Jim's rule for test suites: Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise, never a possibility you were prepared for. Any other attitude indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need only because your understanding is weak.