Re: function definitions in tests

[Thorsten Meyer]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 18-Jan-2010, David Grundberg wrote:
> 
> | This might have to do with changes I did to the interpreter (after 3.2). 
> | I know I changed eval_string() to require function definitions to have 
> | endfunctions. I think this is a good thing when calling eval.m. But with 
> | tests, the block is defined by the indention and that should suffice. 
> | I'm pushing a changeset to fix this.
> | 
> | http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/e68431e60e3d
> 
> But now there will be failures if the test includes an explicit
> endfunction, because you have added one unconditionally.
> 
> Perhaps we should just fix the tests so that they have explicit
> endfunction tokens, or look for some other solution to the problem?
> If the tests fail when run from the command line, why do they succeed
> when run as part of make check?  What is the difference between those
> two cases?
> 
Without Davids patch, the behaviour of the fntests.m script is completely
mysterious to me:
When I run it like it is run in the build process, i.e.
        octave  --norc --silent --no-history fntests.m
the tests do not complain about missing endfunction

However, when I run it like this:
        octave  --norc --silent --no-history
        octave> fntests

I get lots of missing endfunction errors. I also get them, when I wrap the
fntests call into a function or start it with eval("fntests").

regards

Thorsten