Re: Regtest for issue 5181

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 2017-09-23 9:31 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> 2017-09-22 12:22 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now things become _really_ embarrassing.  Trying to come up with
>>>>> improvements on your regtest convinced me that this kind of
>>>>> syntactical feature is not served well by a graphical test featuring
>>>>> the typeset results.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I stole a bunch of code from the display-lily-tests.ly regtest.
>>
>> Up to now I've only a vage impression what
>> 'parse-lily-and-compute-lily-string' and #(read-hash-extend ...) does.
>> I'll currently not dive deeper into it until forced. ;)
>
>  -- Scheme Procedure: read-hash-extend chr proc
>  -- C Function: scm_read_hash_extend (chr, proc)
>      Install the procedure PROC for reading expressions starting with
>      the character sequence ‘#’ and CHR.  PROC will be called with two
>      arguments: the character CHR and the port to read further data
>      from.  The object returned will be the return value of ‘read’.
>      Passing ‘#f’ for PROC will remove a previous setting.
>
> Basically what is done with those does a similar job as
> scm/parser-ly-from-scheme.scm does for #{ ... #} in Scheme, just for #[
> ... #].  Also it doesn't bother to cater for closures or sensible
> error/expression file locations.

Also it's stupid here: the whole idea for display-lily-test was to
compare input string and output expression, and the input string is not
really of interest for _this_ check, so the whole complicated deal does
not pay off.  I'll try to see whether I can make do without it.

-- 
David Kastrup