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

I recommend you just use schemeunit instead.

Robby

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Jay
>
> 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
> http://teammccarthy.org/jay
>
> "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>