[plt-scheme] check-expect exceptionalism bites again.

From: Jay McCarthy (jay.mccarthy at gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 19 14:44:55 EST 2010

Of those options, I prefer the first.

I like the current check-expect behavior, because a student's file can
be in the same order as the design recipe suggests: examples before
function definition. But that's the only reason I like it.


On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:40 PM, John Clements
<clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> I'm putting together a simple teach-yourself-scheme website--I'll show more when I've got more to show--and the goofy evaluation rules for check-expect have bitten me again. Specifically, sending (check-expect 3 4) to an evaluator created with the sandbox evaluator produces void, and presumably the check-expect is going onto a pile to get evaluated "later".  Grr!
> Seems to me like it would be easier just to tell everyone to put their darn test cases as the end of the program.
> Yes, in some sense this is yet another "top level is broken" comment.
> I can see two straightforward solutions that keep the world the way it is:
> 1) create a "dont-delay-test-cases" parameter that--when set--would cause test cases to expand into call-right-now test cases
> 2) create a "trigger-test-case-queue" function that would tell a sandbox evaluator to go ahead and run its test cases.
> Either of these sound good / simple?  Is there a simpler solution?
> John
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93

Posted on the users mailing list.