On 3/3/08, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 1) lisp-eval and lisp-quiet (which are called by break-call when you
> do :lisp or :lisp-quiet) now return something, specifically the list of
> values. Before, :lisp (+ 1 2) would print 3 with princ, but left it at
> that, so calling code definitely couldn't get at the results.
OK by me. A question: what is returned if the :lisp stuff
returns multiple values -- does :lisp return all of them or only
the primary value?
> 2) test-batch now uses dbm-read to get new lines. This doesn't break
> anything... EXCEPT: A stream ending in some whitespace including actual
> spaces/tabs causes an error break in dbm-read.
Well, whitespace seems to creep in at random ... Can you take
a look at DBM-READ and fix it so that it doesn't barf on trailing whitespace?
> 3) test-batch then does clever stuff, partially lifted from continue
> (macsys.lisp) to detect and then run :lisp break commands. It doesn't
> seem trivial to share the code particulary as continue allows general
> break commands (we're only allowing :lisp) and does checking for server
> mode etc.
OK.
> 4) There's a test!!! (-: In rtest_testsuite.mac, and yes it should
> probably be made more complete, but this at least shows that everything
> I changed works I hope.
I see the tests look like
:lisp (foo)
bar$
Does it work with :lisp in the expected result? I am imagining that
the first use of :lisp would be to specify exact results so that
simplification or the lack of it doesn't cause test failures.
Thanks for looking into to this. Let's keep the ball rolling.
best
Robert Dodier