GNU bug report logs - #72382
srfi-64: test-with-runner requires some decl-or-expr

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 72382 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 72382 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: srfi-64: test-with-runner requires some decl-or-expr
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:51:59 +0200

Hello,

I think I found a bug in (srfi srfi-64) module shipped with GNU Guile.

test-with-runner has following signature:

    (test-with-runner runner decl-or-expr ...)

That, according to syntax-case rules (and how test-apply works with the same
definition) should mean that it accepts 0 or more decl-or-expr.  However that
does not seem to be the case:

    (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
    (let ((r (test-runner-null)))
      (test-with-runner r))

Leading to:

    ;;; Syntax error:
    ;;; unknown location: lambda: bad lambda in form (lambda ())
    ice-9/psyntax.scm:2824:12: In procedure syntax-violation:
    Syntax error:
    unknown location: lambda: bad lambda in form (lambda ())

Have a nice day
Tomas Volf

Message #8 received at 72382 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, 72382 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72382: srfi-64: test-with-runner requires some decl-or-expr
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 01:02:13 +0200

On 30.07.2024 21:51, Tomas Volf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I found a bug in (srfi srfi-64) module shipped with GNU Guile.
>
> test-with-runner has following signature:
>
>     (test-with-runner runner decl-or-expr ...)
>
> That, according to syntax-case rules (and how test-apply works with the same
> definition) should mean that it accepts 0 or more decl-or-expr.  However that
> does not seem to be the case:
>
>     (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>     (let ((r (test-runner-null)))
>       (test-with-runner r))
>
> Leading to:
>
>     ;;; Syntax error:
>     ;;; unknown location: lambda: bad lambda in form (lambda ())
>     ice-9/psyntax.scm:2824:12: In procedure syntax-violation:
>     Syntax error:
>     unknown location: lambda: bad lambda in form (lambda ())
>
> Have a nice day
> Tomas Volf
>
>
Should be easy to fix by adding a preceding arm to the syntax-rules, explicitly handling the case of zero decl-or-expr elements as a no-op.

I've just done that in my implementation:

    https://codeberg.org/taylan/scheme-srfis/commit/5e34f47f383fd5a35c88a52bd1d32a65a49b7f0a

- Taylan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.