EXPECTED test failures & clisp

[Faré]

OK, so this is a regression in test-program.script, and I traced it to...

lisp-invocation giving the -I flag to clisp, which causes clisp to
output extra prompts.
Apparently that flag should only be used when invoked inside an emacs M-x shell.

I fixed this in lisp-invocation 1.0.4, and updated the ext/ dependency
in master and minimakefile.

But yes, clisp would be better if it were released again.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Always strive to be the best yourself you can be.
For you can't possibly be anyone else, anyway.




On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> Do we have a way of indicating that we expect a test to fail?
>
> There's a string in the output that talks about "Unexpected test
> failures in..." but I am not sure if there's actually any notion of
> expected vs. unexpected test failure.  IIRC in the past when I knew a
> test would fail I just used reader macros to make sure it wouldn't run.
>
> This is actually not as good as having the test run but not cause a failure.
>
> I ask because I get test failures in clisp on run-program, because
> somehow clisp lets the common-lisp prompt leak into the output of
> running a program.  So I get something like
>
> ("[4]> hello, world") instead of ("hello, world")
>
> IIRC this is a known clisp problem, and may even be fixed in the clisp
> source. But there hasn't been a clisp release for almost five years now,
> and I don't intend to build it from source.
>
> With no releases since 2010, IMO clisp is only "living dead," and
> possibly simply "dead."
>