Re: function definitions in tests

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 18-Jan-2010, Thorsten Meyer wrote:
>
> | 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
>
>
> I think the difference is happening because when Octave is reading the
> fntests.m script, the variable "reading_script_file" is set to true,
> so the following test in the parser does not succeed, and the EOF at
> the end of the eval string used by the test function is accepted as
> the end of the function instead of triggering the error.
>
>                    if (! reading_fcn_file && ! reading_script_file)
>                      {
>                        yyerror ("function body open at end of input");
>                        YYABORT;
>                      }
>
> How about the following change instead of unconditionally appending
> endfunction?  It seems to work for me, and should allow functions to
> work in tests with or without endfunction tokens.
>
>  http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/0c3609dd34cf
>
> jwe
>

I have just a nitpick:
If you add an entry "undo previous change" to ChangeLog, I think you
shouldn't delete the entry for the previous change. The result is very
confusing, because it's unclear what "previous change" refers to.


-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz