Re: A passing test case

[Gregory Marton]

The differences are not significant.  I guess I wanted to make clear in the 
test case that this isn't something to do with literal rationals, and I 
didn't want the test case to be printing things to the console.

Thanks,
Grem

> Gregory Marton <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I just wanted to send in a test case for a bug that is fixed as of
> > guile 1.8.2, but recently bit me, and it's just not that obvious to
> > test for.  It is essentially exposed in 1.8.1 by
> >   (let ((x 1/2))
> >     (display x)
> >     (equal? x 1/2))  ===> #f !
>
> Thanks, but why the differences between the code above and the patch
> below?  Are they significant?
>
> > --- test-suite/tests/fractions.test.1.8.3       2008-01-25 20:08:57.000000000 
> > -0500
> > +++ test-suite/tests/fractions.test     2008-01-25 20:09:07.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -400,3 +400,8 @@
> >  (with-test-prefix "fraction generics"
> >    (testeq (G 1) 'integer)
> >    (testeq (G 2/3) 'fraction))
> > +
> > +(pass-if (let ((x (/ 1 2)))
> > +          (with-output-to-string (lambda () (display x)))
> > +          (equal? x (/ 1 2))))
> > +
>
> Regards,
>        Neil

--
------ __@   Gregory A. Marton                http://csail.mit.edu/~gremio/
--- _`\<,_                                                                .
-- (*)/ (*)                Let the machine do the dirty work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~_~~~_~~~~~v~~~~^^^^~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~++~~~~~~~