Re: [Chicken-users] test-infrastructure update (1.2)

[Kon Lovett]

> Just to let you know, I had realized that after I finished the  
> codebase, I
> was well on my way to implementing a full dialect of scheme where  
> basically
> all of the primitive forms had analog macro implementations which  
> tracked
> everything you were trying to do--like test-let and things of that
> nature.

So an arbitrary Scheme source would be processed by the hypothetical  
'test-compiler' (compiles Scheme -> Test-Scheme)? How would the  
expected result be specified?

Or is it arbitrary? Are the parallel special forms to be used  
directly? Like (test-let <expected> ([...] ...) ...), where each test  
version of an expression has extra test attributes?

>
<snip>
> (the higher
> order function to produce the various kinds of output given the tree
> structure to this day I think is a perfect solution)
<snip>

I may chg the various tree-node representations into record- 
structures, for a slight speed-up. No visible API chg though. ("may  
chg" since they would need to be srfi-9 records as Chicken records  
are not common.)

> Thank you for your contribution, I very much appreciate it.

Your welcome. I committed a new release so it should be available  
soon. Has the TBD I mentioned earlier. I do plan to add Chicken  
compiler declarations to restrict the exported names, but this isn't  
a visible chg.

> -pete