OK, so this is a regression in test-program.script, and I traced it to... lisp-invocation giving the -I flag to clisp, which causes clisp to output extra prompts. Apparently that flag should only be used when invoked inside an emacs M-x shell.
I fixed this in lisp-invocation 1.0.4, and updated the ext/ dependency in master and minimakefile. But yes, clisp would be better if it were released again. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Always strive to be the best yourself you can be. For you can't possibly be anyone else, anyway. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > Do we have a way of indicating that we expect a test to fail? > > There's a string in the output that talks about "Unexpected test > failures in..." but I am not sure if there's actually any notion of > expected vs. unexpected test failure. IIRC in the past when I knew a > test would fail I just used reader macros to make sure it wouldn't run. > > This is actually not as good as having the test run but not cause a failure. > > I ask because I get test failures in clisp on run-program, because > somehow clisp lets the common-lisp prompt leak into the output of > running a program. So I get something like > > ("[4]> hello, world") instead of ("hello, world") > > IIRC this is a known clisp problem, and may even be fixed in the clisp > source. But there hasn't been a clisp release for almost five years now, > and I don't intend to build it from source. > > With no releases since 2010, IMO clisp is only "living dead," and > possibly simply "dead." >
