[ansi-test-devel] [armedbear-devel] Unicode, CHAR-UPCASE/CHAR-DOWNCASE and char-upcase.1/char-upcase.2

[dmiles@users.sourceforge.net]

My first querstion is if the CHAR-UPCASE.2 and CHAR-DOWNCASE.2. tests in
ANSI-TEST are in need of repair?
If so, is there a proposal how to fix them?

Many Lisps pass them.. Some do not .. When a lisp starts failing them when
it passed them before it is useful information.

I think many lisp implementations rely on running these tests to spot
regressions.

So whatever you do please either fix the test or fix the implementation that
had the regression.


On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ever since ABCL raised its CHAR-CODE-LIMIT from 256 to #x10000, 2
> tests started failing: char-upcase.1 and char-upcase.2.
>
> These 2 tests iterate through all integers between 0 and
> CHAR-CODE-LIMIT. While doing so, they test for the property that
> upcasing and downcasing returns the same character again
> ("round-tripping"). This property of characters is specified in
> section 13.1.4.3
> (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw51/CLHS/Body/13_adc.htm)
> "Characters with case". In short: characters with case are defined in
> pairs; additional characters with case have to be defined in pairs
> too.
>
> The spec provides char-upcase and char-downcase to convert
> characters-with-case to their 'other-case equivalent'.
>
> However, in section 13.1.10, there seems to be an escape hatch:
> "Documentation of implementation-defined scripts". A script is a
> subtype of CHARACTER, nothing more nothing less. An
> implementation-defined script gets to document the effect on
> CHAR-UPCASE and CHAR-DOWNCASE.
>
> Now, if I were to define our Unicode script to be every character
> except those in the base set, char-upcase and char-downcase may have
> different semantics, except for the standard characters. That way,
> there's no need to have the round-tripping requirement apply to most
> of unicode - as can't be expected, see latin-small-letter-dotless-i
> for an example.
>
> In the light above, is it really portable for the tests to assume all
> characters must be round-tripped? I think it's not.
>
> What are your opinions?
>
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> _______________________________________________
> armedbear-devel mailing list
> armedbear-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ansi-test-devel/attachments/20100403/0cf6553f/attachment.html>