On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Schmiedl <s...@xss.de> wrote: > Naively speaking (and without reading any docs ;-), I'd expect => > to handle "normal" operations. Using error-arrows is a good idea, > as it makes it clearly visible that there's something going on here > without clobbering the test descriptions. > > In Robby's case (+ x 1) would raise an error, which would _not_ > be caught by => but instead show up as normal exception. > > I'm not convinced that you'd need more than one type of error arrow, > though.
Syntax errors are sufficiently different that it seems warranted to me. It is just to easy to duplicate a syntax error on both sides of the => when you really meant to be testing something else (even an error condition). Unless you're testing a macro, after all, you don't want any syntax errors at all. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
