GNU bug report logs -
#59328
29.0.50; `seq-keep' implementation only valid for lists
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: 59328 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, jonas <at> bernoul.li
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 10:47:31 +0100
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Can tests for this be written in a way that they are only run if the
> > relevant packages are available on the user's system? If so, I'd
> > prefer to have that than no tests at all.
>
> I don't know.
AFAIK, 'require' can return nil if asked not to error out.
> Alternatively we could implement `seq-map' for an ad-hoc defined
> sequence type and test using that type, e.g. this expression:
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (progn
> (defvar gensym)
> (let ((gensym (make-symbol "foo")))
> (eval `(cl-defmethod seq-map (function (thing (head ,gensym)))
> (append (list (car thing) (cadr thing)) (seq-map function (cddr thing))))
> t)
> (equal (list gensym nil 4 46)
> (seq-keep (lambda (x) (and (integerp x) (* 2 x)))
> (list gensym nil 2 'x gensym 23)))))
> #+end_src
>
> returns t with my patch installed and nil else and works without relying
> on something external. I'm not sure if defining methods (for seq-map in
> this case) that are globally visible is allowed in tests, so I
> implemented the example above in a way that the change of the generic
> function is not visible from the outside (thus the "secret" gensym).
>
> Would something like that be acceptable?
>
> Sorry for my ignorance, I didn't write much tests before.
Sounds like over-engineering to me.
Like I said: it's your call. If you see too many complications to adding a
test, and my suggestions don't convince you, I won't object to installing
your original proposal without a test.
Thanks.
This bug report was last modified 124 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.