On 13.02.11 21:59, Robby Findler wrote:
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.
So maybe add an additional test-syntax form which "quotes" syntax errors
so you can test them. And make the normal test form re-raise syntax errors.
I don't think that having to use a separate form just to test macros
would be a bad idea.
--
regards,
Jakub Piotr Cłapa
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
