> Meaning, he talked you into it and you naively agreed? ;) > Something like that. :)
> The tests look absolutely machine generated, BTW. :) > Oh, for sure. (I contemplated making my "gensym" do something more clever, but it didn't seem like there was any reason ...) I suspect at least chunks of the original test suite in Scheme were also auto-generated, but they at least used the same names (f, g, etc) over and over. Actually, related to the discussion in another thread about the Cython grammar: if we *did* write down a formal grammar for Cython, are there programs out there that will generate random valid expressions in the language? Given that we have Python to compare against (at least in the case that it's a valid Python program), it'd be interesting to leave something like that running on a machine for a while, see if it spots any weird corner cases. If nothing else, it'd be nice to do something like generate all valid parse trees (up to, say, choice of ints, strings, lists, etc. in the leaves) of height at most N for some small-ish N. > Are there any special error cases in the closures code that would deserve > special testing? > Not that I know of -- I just know that it's something I personally didn't exercise at all. > Cool. How much time can you spare on this? > > If you need any help, please ask (and make sure you're not 80% through with > it before you ask ;). > I should have a reasonable amount of time for this, but why don't I wait until I'm at least a bit started before making any claims. :) On a related note, what happened to the cython IRC channel? Was it just underpopulated enough that it disappeared? -cc _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
