[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I believe the patch below is the correct fix for this. Please test
>> and/or comment!
>
> Works like a charm!
Thanks for trying it.
>> +2007-10-19 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> +
>> + * standalone/test-use-srfi: Use -q to avoid picking up the user's
>> + ~/.guile file.
>
> Thanks for taking care of this one too!
I repro'd Frank's problem by adding the force/error expression to my
.guile. Then, after fixing that, I ran make check, and just couldn't
understand (for a while) which test-use-srfi started failing... :-)
> (I had forgotten about it, which may be an indication that we should
> really start using the bug tracker.)
What would that involve?
> Could we hide the backtrace, because it's always a bit scary to see a
> backtrace in the middle of the "PASS" lines? Something like:
>
> (with-output-to-port (%make-void-port "w")
> (lambda ()
> ...
> (display-backtrace)
Yes, I meant to do that but forgot. No need for with-output-to-port
though; just need to change the second arg of display-backtrace to
(%make-void-port "w").
> Alternatively, could `unmemoize-expr' somehow be used for the test?
I looked at that, but couldn't work out what unmemoize-expr's args
should be. Also, this would make the test depart further from the
reported scenario. So I think best to stick with using
display-backtrace.
> Perhaps the `debug-enable' and `debug-disable' could be in a
> `dynamic-wind', but that's not big deal.
Yes, I'll do that. There's a couple of places in the tests that use
debug-enable/disable like this, so it's worth adding a
with-debugging-evaluator form to (test-suite lib).
> Thanks,
> Ludovic.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
