Hello, The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.
Noah On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen <ka...@kanru.info> wrote: > Hi, > > Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: > >> If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with >> ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I >> suspect that such a feature could be added easily. > > Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly. > > I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse > script, which only tests the parser. > > python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log > > The result is impressive (full log attached): > > === Summary === > - Ran 5246 tests > - Passed 4410 tests (84.1%) > - Failed 836 tests (15.9%) > > Where the failed tests have > > - 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported) > - 393 rbrace errors (see below) > - 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below) > - 159 remain to sort out > > The rbrace errors are from > > function test() {} > // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace > > function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } }; > // Syntax error: unexpected token : in form rbrace > > I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many > errors like > > Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";}; > // No applicable method for #<<generic> pput (6)> in call (pput > // #<unbound> toString #<procedure 1e1c438 ()>) > > I thought the tests won't run correctly without this. > > [1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/ > > Cheers, > Kanru > -- > A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good > book is a crime. > -- Gilbert Highet >
0001-ECMAScript-Unicode-Literals.patch
Description: Binary data