bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
adjustment.

* doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.

---

Changes in v3:
 - Add copyright / license information
 - Replace SchemeUnit mentions with RackUnit

Changes in v2:
 - Fix the category of many definitions

 doc/ref/guile.texi        |  25 +-
 doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi | 830 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 847 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/ref/guile.texi b/doc/ref/guile.texi
index bde9f6f75..988d30155 100644
--- a/doc/ref/guile.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/guile.texi
@@ -24,8 +24,31 @@ any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
 Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A
 copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free
 Documentation License.''
-@end copying
 
+Additionally, the documentation of the SRFI 64 module is adapted from
+its specification text, which is made available under the following
+Expat license:
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
+copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
+"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
+without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
+distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
+permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
+the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
+in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
+OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
+NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
+LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
+OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
+WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
+
+@end copying
 
 @c Notes
 @c
diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
index efb9ccca4..0c2ddec81 100644
--- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 @c -*-texinfo-*-
 @c This is part of the GNU Guile Reference Manual.
-@c Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 2000-2004, 2006, 2007-2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
+@c Copyright (C) 1996-1997, 2000-2004, 2006-2014, 2017-2020, 2023
 @c   Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+@c Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Per Bothner
 @c See the file guile.texi for copying conditions.
 
 @node SRFI Support
@@ -55,7 +56,7 @@ get the relevant SRFI documents from the SRFI home page
 * SRFI-60::                     Integers as bits.
 * SRFI-61::                     A more general `cond' clause
 * SRFI-62::                     S-expression comments.
-* SRFI-64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
+* SRFI 64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
 * SRFI-67::                     Compare procedures
 * SRFI-69::                     Basic hash tables.
 * SRFI-71::                     Extended let-syntax for multiple values.
@@ -5289,12 +5290,827 @@ needed to get SRFI-61 itself.  Extended @code{cond} is documented in
 Starting from version 2.0, Guile's @code{read} supports SRFI-62/R7RS
 S-expression comments by default.
 
-@node SRFI-64
-@subsection SRFI-64 - A Scheme API for test suites.
-@cindex SRFI-64
+@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
+@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
+@node SRFI 64
+@subsection SRFI 64: A Scheme API for test suites
+@cindex SRFI 64
 
-See @uref{http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-64/srfi-64.html, the
-specification of SRFI-64}.
+@menu
+* SRFI 64 Abstract::
+* SRFI 64 Rationale::
+* SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites::
+* SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features::
+* SRFI 64 Test-runner::
+* SRFI 64 Test results::
+* SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner::
+@end menu
+
+@node SRFI 64 Abstract
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Abstract
+
+This defines an API for writing @dfn{test suites}, to make it easy to
+portably test Scheme APIs, libraries, applications, and implementations.
+A test suite is a collection of @dfn{test cases} that execute in the
+context of a @dfn{test-runner}.  This specification also supports
+writing new test-runners, to allow customization of reporting and
+processing the result of running test suites.
+
+@node SRFI 64 Rationale
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Rationale
+
+The Scheme community needs a standard for writing test suites.  Every
+SRFI or other library should come with a test suite.  Such a test suite
+must be portable, without requiring any non-standard features, such as
+modules.  The test suite implementation or "runner" need not be
+portable, but it is desirable that it be possible to write a portable
+basic implementation.
+
+There are other testing frameworks written in Scheme, including
+@url{https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/, RackUnit}.  However
+RackUnit is not portable.  It is also a bit on the verbose side.  It
+would be useful to have a bridge between this framework and RackUnit so
+RackUnit tests could run under this framework and vice versa.  There
+exists also at least one Scheme wrapper providing a Scheme interface to
+the ``standard'' @url{https://www.junit.org/, JUnit} API for Java.  It
+would be useful to have a bridge so that tests written using this
+framework can run under a JUnit runner.  Neither of these features are
+part of this specification.
+
+This API makes use of implicit dynamic state, including an implicit
+``test runner''.  This makes the API convenient and terse to use, but it
+may be a little less elegant and ``compositional'' than using explicit
+test objects, such as JUnit-style frameworks.  It is not claimed to
+follow either object-oriented or functional design principles, but I
+hope it is useful and convenient to use and extend.
+
+This proposal allows converting a Scheme source file to a
+test suite by just adding a few macros.  You don't have to
+write the entire file in a new form, thus you don't have to
+re-indent it.
+
+All names defined by the API start with the prefix @samp{test-}.  All
+function-like forms are defined as syntax.  They may be implemented as
+functions or macros or built-ins.  The reason for specifying them as
+syntax is to allow specific tests to be skipped without evaluating
+sub-expressions, or for implementations to add features such as printing
+line numbers or catching exceptions.
+
+@node SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
+
+Let's start with a simple example.  This is a complete self-contained
+test-suite.
+
+@lisp
+;; Initialize and give a name to a simple testsuite.
+(test-begin "vec-test")
+(define v (make-vector 5 99))
+;; Require that an expression evaluate to true.
+(test-assert (vector? v))
+;; Test that an expression is eqv? to some other expression.
+(test-eqv 99 (vector-ref v 2))
+(vector-set! v 2 7)
+(test-eqv 7 (vector-ref v 2))
+;; Finish the testsuite, and report results.
+(test-end "vec-test")
+@end lisp
+
+This testsuite could be saved in its own source file.  Nothing else is
+needed: We do not require any top-level forms, so it is easy to wrap an
+existing program or test to this form, without adding indentation.  It
+is also easy to add new tests, without having to name individual tests
+(though that is optional).
+
+Test cases are executed in the context of a @dfn{test runner}, which is
+a object that accumulates and reports test results.  This specification
+defines how to create and use custom test runners, but implementations
+should also provide a default test runner.  It is suggested (but not
+required) that loading the above file in a top-level environment will
+cause the tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default
+test runner, and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed in
+an implementation-specified manner.
+
+@subsubheading Simple test-cases
+
+Primitive test cases test that a given condition is true.  They may have
+a name.  The core test case form is @code{test-assert}:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-assert [test-name] expression
+
+This evaluates the @var{expression}.  The test passes if the result is
+true; if the result is false, a test failure is reported.  The test also
+fails if an exception is raised, assuming the implementation has a way
+to catch exceptions.  How the failure is reported depends on the test
+runner environment.  The @var{test-name} is a string that names the test
+case.  (Though the @var{test-name} is a string literal in the examples,
+it is an expression.  It is evaluated only once.)  It is used when
+reporting errors, and also when skipping tests, as described below.  It
+is an error to invoke @code{test-assert}if there is no current test
+runner.
+@end deffn
+
+The following forms may be more convenient than using @code{test-assert}
+directly:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-eqv [test-name] expected test-expr
+
+This is equivalent to:
+
+@lisp
+(test-assert [@var{test-name}] (eqv? @var{expected} @var{test-expr}))
+@end lisp
+
+@end deffn
+
+Similarly @code{test-equal} and @code{test-eq} are shorthand for
+@code{test-assert} combined with @code{equal?} or @code{eq?},
+respectively:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-equal [test-name] expected test-expr
+@deffnx {Scheme Syntax} test-eq [test-name] expected test-expr
+
+Here is a simple example:
+
+@lisp
+(define (mean x y) (/ (+ x y) 2.0))
+(test-eqv 4 (mean 3 5))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+For testing approximate equality of inexact reals
+we can use @code{test-approximate}:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-approximate [test-name] expected test-expr error
+
+This is equivalent to (except that each argument is only evaluated
+once):
+
+@lisp
+(test-assert [test-name]
+  (and (>= test-expr (- expected error))
+       (<= test-expr (+ expected error))))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Tests for catching errors
+
+We need a way to specify that evaluation @emph{should} fail.  This
+verifies that errors are detected when required.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-error [[test-name] error-type] test-expr
+
+Evaluating @var{test-expr} is expected to signal an error.  The kind of
+error is indicated by @var{error-type}.
+
+If the @var{error-type} is left out, or it is @code{#t}, it means "some
+kind of unspecified error should be signaled".  For example:
+
+@lisp
+(test-error #t (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
+@end lisp
+
+This specification leaves it implementation-defined (or for a future
+specification) what form @var{test-error} may take, though all
+implementations must allow @code{#t}.  Some implementations may support
+@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-35/srfi-35.html, SRFI-35's
+conditions}, but these are only standardized for
+@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-36/srfi-36.html, SRFI-36's I/O
+conditions}, which are seldom useful in test suites.  An implementation
+may also allow implementation-specific ``exception types''.  For example
+Java-based implementations may allow the names of Java exception
+classes:
+
+@lisp
+;; Kawa-specific example
+(test-error <java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException> (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
+@end lisp
+
+An implementation that cannot catch exceptions should skip
+@code{test-error} forms.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Testing syntax
+
+Testing syntax is tricky, especially if we want to check that invalid
+syntax is causing an error.  The following utility function can help:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-read-eval-string string
+
+This function parses @var{string} (using @code{read}) and evaluates the
+result.  The result of evaluation is returned from
+@code{test-read-eval-string}.  An error is signalled if there are unread
+characters after the @code{read} is done.  For example:
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4)")} @i{evaluates to} @code{7}.
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4")} @i{signals an error}.
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4) ")} @i{signals an error}, because
+there is extra ``junk'' (@i{i.e.} a space) after the list is read.
+
+The @code{test-read-eval-string} used in tests:
+
+@lisp
+(test-equal 7 (test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4)"))
+(test-error (test-read-eval-string "(+ 3"))
+(test-equal #\newline (test-read-eval-string "#\\newline"))
+(test-error (test-read-eval-string "#\\newlin"))
+;; Skip the next 2 tests unless srfi-62 is available.
+(test-skip (cond-expand (srfi-62 0) (else 2)))
+(test-equal 5 (test-read-eval-string "(+ 1 #;(* 2 3) 4)"))
+(test-equal '(x z) (test-read-string "(list 'x #;'y 'z)"))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Test groups and paths
+
+A @dfn{test group} is a named sequence of forms containing testcases,
+expressions, and definitions.  Entering a group sets the @dfn{test group
+name}; leaving a group restores the previous group name.  These are
+dynamic (run-time) operations, and a group has no other effect or
+identity.  Test groups are informal groupings: they are neither Scheme
+values, nor are they syntactic forms.
+@c (More formal <q>test suite</q> values are introduced below.)
+A test group may contain nested inner test groups.
+The @dfn{test group path} is a list of the currently-active
+(entered) test group names, oldest (outermost) first.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-begin suite-name [count]
+
+A @code{test-begin} enters a new test group.  The @var{suite-name}
+becomes the current test group name, and is added to the end of the test
+group path.  Portable test suites should use a string literal for
+@var{suite-name}; the effect of expressions or other kinds of literals
+is unspecified.
+
+@emph{Rationale:} In some ways using symbols would be preferable.
+However, we want human-readable names, and standard Scheme does not
+provide a way to include spaces or mixed-case text in literal symbols.
+
+The optional @var{count} must match the number of test-cases executed by
+this group.  (Nested test groups count as a single test case for this
+count.)  This extra test may be useful to catch cases where a test
+doesn't get executed because of some unexpected error.
+
+Additionally, if there is no currently executing test runner,
+one is installed in an implementation-defined manner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-end [suite-name]
+
+A @code{test-end} leaves the current test group.
+An error is reported if the @var{suite-name} does not
+match the current test group name.
+@c If it does match an earlier name in the test group path, intervening
+@c groups are left.
+
+Additionally, if the matching @code{test-begin}installed a new
+test-runner, then the @code{test-end} will uninstall it, after reporting
+the accumulated test results in an implementation-defined manner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-group suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{}
+
+Equivalent to:
+
+@lisp
+(if (not (test-to-skip% (var suite-name)))
+  (dynamic-wind
+    (lambda () (test-begin (var suite-name)))
+    (lambda () (var decl-or-expr) ...)
+    (lambda () (test-end (var suite-name)))))
+@end lisp
+
+This is usually equivalent to executing the @var{decl-or-expr}s
+within the named test group.  However, the entire group is skipped
+if it matched an active @code{test-skip} (see later).
+Also, the @code{test-end} is executed in case of an exception.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Handling set-up and cleanup
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-group-with-cleanup suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{} cleanup-form
+
+Execute each of the @var{decl-or-expr} forms in order (as in a
+@var{<body>}), and then execute the @var{cleanup-form}.  The latter
+should be executed even if one of a @var{decl-or-expr} forms raises an
+exception (assuming the implementation has a way to catch exceptions).
+
+For example:
+
+@lisp
+(let ((f (open-output-file "log")))
+  (test-group-with-cleanup "test-file"
+    (do-a-bunch-of-tests f)
+    (close-output-port f)))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@node SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
+
+The following describes features for controlling which tests to execute,
+or specifying that some tests are @emph{expected} to fail.
+
+@subsubheading Test specifiers
+
+Sometimes we want to only run certain tests, or we know that certain
+tests are expected to fail.  A @dfn{test specifier} is one-argument
+function that takes a test-runner and returns a boolean.  The specifier
+may be run before a test is performed, and the result may control
+whether the test is executed.  For convenience, a specifier may also be
+a non-procedure value, which is coerced to a specifier procedure, as
+described below for @var{count} and @var{name}.
+
+A simple example is:
+
+@lisp
+(if (var some-condition)  (test-skip 2)) ;; skip next 2 tests
+@end lisp
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-match-name name
+
+The resulting specifier matches if the current test name (as returned by
+@code{test-runner-test-name}) is @code{equal?} to @var{name}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-nth n [count]
+
+This evaluates to a @emph{stateful} predicate: A counter keeps track of
+how many times it has been called.  The predicate matches the @var{n}'th
+time it is called (where @code{1} is the first time), and the next
+@samp{(- @var{count} 1)} times, where @var{count} defaults to @code{1}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-any specifier @dots{}
+
+The resulting specifier matches if any @var{specifier} matches.  Each
+@var{specifier} is applied, in order, so side-effects from a later
+@var{specifier} happen even if an earlier @var{specifier} is true.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-all specifier @dots{}
+
+The resulting specifier matches if each @var{specifier} matches.  Each
+@var{specifier} is applied, in order, so side-effects from a later
+@var{specifier} happen even if an earlier @var{specifier} is false.
+@end deffn
+
+@var{count} @i{(i.e. an integer)}
+Convenience short-hand for: @samp{(test-match-nth 1 @var{count})}.
+
+@var{name} @i{(i.e. a string)}
+Convenience short-hand for @samp{(test-match-name @var{name})}.
+
+@subsubheading Skipping selected tests
+
+In some cases you may want to skip a test.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-skip specifier
+
+Evaluating @code{test-skip} adds the resulting @var{specifier} to the
+set of currently active skip-specifiers.  Before each test (or
+@code{test-group}) the set of active skip-specifiers are applied to the
+active test-runner.  If any specifier matches, then the test is skipped.
+
+For convenience, if the @var{specifier} is a string that is syntactic
+sugar for @code{(test-match-name @var{specifier})}.  For example:
+
+@lisp
+(test-skip "test-b")
+(test-assert "test-a")   ;; executed
+(test-assert "test-b")   ;; skipped
+@end lisp
+
+Any skip specifiers introduced by a @code{test-skip} are removed by a
+following non-nested @code{test-end}.
+
+@lisp
+(test-begin "group1")
+(test-skip "test-a")
+(test-assert "test-a")   ;; skipped
+(test-end "group1")      ;; Undoes the prior test-skip
+(test-assert "test-a")   ;; executed
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Expected failures
+
+Sometimes you know a test case will fail, but you don't have time to or
+can't fix it.  Maybe a certain feature only works on certain platforms.
+However, you want the test-case to be there to remind you to fix it.
+You want to note that such tests are expected to fail.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-expect-fail specifier
+
+Matching tests (where matching is defined as in @code{test-skip})
+are expected to fail.  This only affects test reporting,
+not test execution.  For example:
+
+@lisp
+(test-expect-fail 2)
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to fail
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to fail
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to pass
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@node SRFI 64 Test-runner
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Test-runner
+
+A @dfn{test-runner} is an object that runs a test-suite, and manages the
+state.  The test group path, and the sets skip and expected-fail
+specifiers are part of the test-runner.  A test-runner will also
+typically accumulate statistics about executed tests,
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner? value
+
+True if and only if @var{value} is a test-runner object.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-current
+@deffnx {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-current runner
+
+Get or set the current test-runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-get
+
+Same as @code{(test-runner-current)}, but throws an exception if there
+is no current test-runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-simple
+
+Creates a new simple test-runner, that prints errors and a summary on
+the standard output port.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-null
+
+Creates a new test-runner, that does nothing with the test results.
+This is mainly meant for extending when writing a custom runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-create
+
+Create a new test-runner.  Equivalent to @samp{((test-runner-factory))}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-factory
+@deffnx {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-factory factory
+
+Get or set the current test-runner factory.  A factory is a
+zero-argument function that creates a new test-runner.  The default
+value is @code{test-runner-simple}.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Running specific tests with a specified runner
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-apply [runner] specifier @dots{} procedure
+
+Calls @var{procedure} with no arguments using the specified @var{runner}
+as the current test-runner.  If @var{runner} is omitted, then
+@code{(test-runner-current)} is used.  (If there is no current runner,
+one is created as in @code{test-begin}.)  If one or more
+@var{specifier}s are listed then only tests matching the
+@var{specifier}s are executed.  A @var{specifier} has the same form as
+one used for @code{test-skip}.  A test is executed if it matches any of
+the @var{specifier}s in the @code{test-apply} @emph{and} does not match
+any active @code{test-skip} specifiers.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-with-runner runner decl-or-expr @dots{}
+
+Executes each @var{decl-or-expr} in order in a context where the current
+test-runner is @var{runner}.
+@end deffn
+
+@node SRFI 64 Test results
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Test results
+
+Running a test sets various status properties in the current test-runner.
+This can be examined by a custom test-runner,
+or (more rarely) in a test-suite.
+
+@subsubheading Result kind
+
+Running a test may yield one of the following
+status symbols:
+
+@table @asis
+@item @code{'pass}
+The test passed, as expected.
+
+@item @code{'fail}
+The test failed (and was not expected to).
+
+@item @code{'xfail}
+The test failed and was expected to.
+
+@item @code{'xpass}
+The test passed, but was expected to fail.
+
+@item @code{'skip}
+The test was skipped.
+@end table
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-kind [runner]
+
+Returns one of the above result codes from the most recent tests.
+Returns @code{#f} if no tests have been run yet.  If we've started on a
+new test, but don't have a result yet, then the result kind is
+@code{'xfail} if the test is expected to fail, @code{'skip} if the test
+is supposed to be skipped, or @code{#f} otherwise.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-passed? [runner]
+
+True if the value of @samp{(test-result-kind [@var{runner}])} is one of
+@code{'pass} or @code{'xpass}.  This is a convenient shorthand that
+might be useful in a test suite to only run certain tests if the
+previous test passed.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Test result properties
+
+A test runner also maintains a set of more detailed
+``result@tie{}properties'' associated with the current or most recent
+test.  (I.e. the properties of the most recent test are available as
+long as a new test hasn't started.)  Each property has a name (a symbol)
+and a value (any value).  Some properties are standard or set by the
+implementation; implementations can add more.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-ref runner pname [default]
+
+Returns the property value associated with the @var{pname} property name
+(a symbol).  If there is no value associated with @var{pname} return
+@var{default}, or @code{#f} if @var{default} isn't specified.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-result-set! runner pname value
+
+Sets the property value associated with the @var{pname} property name to
+@var{value}.  Usually implementation code should call this function, but
+it may be useful for a custom test-runner to add extra properties.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-remove runner pname
+
+Remove the property with the name @var{pname}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-clear runner
+
+Remove all result properties.  The implementation automatically calls
+@code{test-result-clear} at the start of a @code{test-assert} and
+similar procedures.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-alist runner
+
+Returns an association list of the current result properties.  It is
+unspecified if the result shares state with the test-runner.  The result
+should not be modified; on the other hand, the result may be implicitly
+modified by future @code{test-result-set!} or @code{test-result-remove}
+calls.  However, a @code{test-result-clear} does not modify the returned
+alist.  Thus you can ``archive'' result objects from previous runs.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Standard result properties
+
+The set of available result properties is implementation-specific.
+However, it is suggested that the following might be provided:
+@table @asis
+
+@item @code{'result-kind}
+The result kind, as defined previously.
+This is the only mandatory result property.
+@code{(test-result-kind @var{runner})} is equivalent to:
+@code{(test-result-ref  @var{runner} 'result-kind)}
+
+@item @code{'source-file}
+@itemx @code{'source-line}
+If known, the location of test statements (such as @code{test-assert})
+in test suite source code.
+
+@item @code{'source-form}
+The source form, if meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'expected-value}
+The expected non-error result, if meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'expected-error}
+The @var{error-type}specified in a @code{test-error}, if it meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'actual-value}
+The actual non-error result value, if meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'actual-error}
+The error value, if an error was signalled and it is known.
+The actual error value is implementation-defined.
+@end table
+
+@node SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
+
+This section specifies how to write a test-runner.  It can be ignored if
+you just want to write test-cases.
+
+@subsubheading Call-back functions
+
+These call-back functions are ``methods'' (in the object-oriented sense)
+of a test-runner.  A method @code{test-runner-on-@var{event}} is called
+by the implementation when @var{event} happens.
+
+To define (set) the callback function for @var{event} use the following
+expression.  (This is normally done when initializing a test-runner.)
+
+@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event}! @var{runner} @var{event-function})}
+
+An @var{event-function} takes a test-runner argument, and possibly other
+arguments, depending on the @var{event}.
+
+To extract (get) the callback function for @var{event} do this:
+@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event} @var{runner})}
+
+To extract call the callback function for @var{event} use the following
+expression.  (This is normally done by the implementation core.)
+@samp{((test-runner-on-@var{event} @var{runner}) @var{runner}
+@var{other-args} @dots{})}.
+
+The following call-back hooks are available.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-begin runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-begin! runner on-test-begin-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-test-begin-function runner
+
+The @var{on-test-begin-function} is called at the start of an
+individual testcase, before the test expression (and expected value) are
+evaluated.
+
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-end runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-end! runner on-test-end-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-test-end-function runner
+
+The @var{on-test-end-function} is called at the end of an
+individual testcase, when the result of the test is available.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-begin runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-begin! runner on-group-begin-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-group-begin-function runner suite-name count
+
+The @var{on-group-begin-function} is called by a @code{test-begin},
+including at the start of a @code{test-group}.  The @var{suite-name} is
+a Scheme string, and @var{count} is an integer or @code{#f}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-end runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-end! runner on-group-end-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-group-end-function runner
+
+The @var{on-group-end-function} is called by a @code{test-end},
+including at the end of a @code{test-group}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-count runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-count! runner on-bad-count-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-bad-count-function runner actual-count expected-count
+
+Called from @code{test-end} (before the @var{on-group-end-function} is
+called) if an @var{expected-count} was specified by the matching
+@code{test-begin} and the @var{expected-count} does not match the
+@var{actual-count} of tests actually executed or skipped.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-end-name runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-end-name! runner on-bad-end-name-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-bad-end-name-function runner begin-name end-name
+
+Called from @code{test-end} (before the @var{on-group-end-function} is
+called) if a @var{suite-name} was specified, and it did not that the
+name in the matching @code{test-begin}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-final runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-final! runner on-final-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-final-function runner
+
+The @var{on-final-function} takes one parameter (a test-runner) and
+typically displays a summary (count) of the tests.  The
+@var{on-final-function} is called after called the
+@var{on-group-end-function} correspondiong to the outermost
+@code{test-end}.  The default value is @code{test-on-final-simple} which
+writes to the standard output port the number of tests of the various
+kinds.
+@end deffn
+
+The default test-runner returned by @code{test-runner-simple} uses the
+following call-back functions:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-on-test-begin-simple runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-test-end-simple runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-group-begin-simple runner suite-name count
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-group-end-simple runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-bad-count-simple runner actual-count expected-count
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-bad-end-name-simple runner begin-name end-name
+
+You can call those if you want to write your own test-runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Test-runner components
+
+The following functions are for accessing the other components of a
+test-runner.  They would normally only be used to write a new
+test-runner or a match-predicate.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-pass-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that passed, and were expected to pass.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-fail-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that failed, but were expected to pass.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-xpass-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that passed, but were expected to fail.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-xfail-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that failed, and were expected to pass.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-skip-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests or test groups that were skipped.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-test-name runner
+
+Returns the name of the current test or test group, as a string.  During
+execution of @code{test-begin} this is the name of the test group;
+during the execution of an actual test, this is the name of the
+test-case.  If no name was specified, the name is the empty string.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-group-path runner
+
+A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group
+first.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-group-stack runner
+
+A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group
+last.  (This is more efficient than @code{test-runner-group-path}, since
+it doesn't require any copying.)
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-aux-value runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-aux-value! runner on-test
+
+Get or set the @code{aux-value} field of a test-runner.  This field is
+not used by this API or the @code{test-runner-simple} test-runner, but
+may be used by custom test-runners to store extra state.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-reset runner
+
+Resets the state of the @var{runner} to its initial state.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Example
+
+This is an example of a simple custom test-runner.
+Loading this program before running a test-suite will install
+it as the default test runner.
+
+@lisp
+(define (my-simple-runner filename)
+  (let ((runner (test-runner-null))
+	(port (open-output-file filename))
+        (num-passed 0)
+        (num-failed 0))
+    (test-runner-on-test-end! runner
+      (lambda (runner)
+        (case (test-result-kind runner)
+          ((pass xpass) (set! num-passed (+ num-passed 1)))
+          ((fail xfail) (set! num-failed (+ num-failed 1)))
+          (else #t))))
+    (test-runner-on-final! runner
+       (lambda (runner)
+          (format port "Passing tests: ~d.~%Failing tests: ~d.~%"
+                  num-passed num-failed)
+	  (close-output-port port)))
+    runner))
+(test-runner-factory
+ (lambda () (my-simple-runner "/tmp/my-test.log")))
+@end lisp
 
 @node SRFI-67
 @subsection SRFI-67 - Compare procedures

base-commit: 779a83d9c682345802f9a605cb8e2b4892129316
-- 
2.41.0

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
adjustment.

* doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.

---

Changes in v4:
 - Rebased

Changes in v3:
 - Add copyright / license information
 - Replace SchemeUnit mentions with RackUnit

Changes in v2:
 - Fix the category of many definitions

 doc/ref/guile.texi        |  25 +-
 doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi | 830 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 847 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/ref/guile.texi b/doc/ref/guile.texi
index bde9f6f75..988d30155 100644
--- a/doc/ref/guile.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/guile.texi
@@ -24,8 +24,31 @@ any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
 Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A
 copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free
 Documentation License.''
-@end copying
 
+Additionally, the documentation of the SRFI 64 module is adapted from
+its specification text, which is made available under the following
+Expat license:
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
+copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
+"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
+without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
+distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
+permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
+the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
+in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
+OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
+NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
+LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
+OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
+WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
+
+@end copying
 
 @c Notes
 @c
diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
index 02da3e2f2..4d408d6cb 100644
--- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 @c -*-texinfo-*-
 @c This is part of the GNU Guile Reference Manual.
-@c Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 2000-2004, 2006, 2007-2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
+@c Copyright (C) 1996-1997, 2000-2004, 2006-2014, 2017-2020, 2023
 @c   Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+@c Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Per Bothner
 @c See the file guile.texi for copying conditions.
 
 @node SRFI Support
@@ -55,7 +56,7 @@ get the relevant SRFI documents from the SRFI home page
 * SRFI-60::                     Integers as bits.
 * SRFI-61::                     A more general `cond' clause
 * SRFI-62::                     S-expression comments.
-* SRFI-64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
+* SRFI 64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
 * SRFI-67::                     Compare procedures
 * SRFI-69::                     Basic hash tables.
 * SRFI-71::                     Extended let-syntax for multiple values.
@@ -5290,12 +5291,827 @@ needed to get SRFI-61 itself.  Extended @code{cond} is documented in
 Starting from version 2.0, Guile's @code{read} supports SRFI-62/R7RS
 S-expression comments by default.
 
-@node SRFI-64
-@subsection SRFI-64 - A Scheme API for test suites.
-@cindex SRFI-64
+@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
+@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
+@node SRFI 64
+@subsection SRFI 64: A Scheme API for test suites
+@cindex SRFI 64
 
-See @uref{http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-64/srfi-64.html, the
-specification of SRFI-64}.
+@menu
+* SRFI 64 Abstract::
+* SRFI 64 Rationale::
+* SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites::
+* SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features::
+* SRFI 64 Test-runner::
+* SRFI 64 Test results::
+* SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner::
+@end menu
+
+@node SRFI 64 Abstract
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Abstract
+
+This defines an API for writing @dfn{test suites}, to make it easy to
+portably test Scheme APIs, libraries, applications, and implementations.
+A test suite is a collection of @dfn{test cases} that execute in the
+context of a @dfn{test-runner}.  This specification also supports
+writing new test-runners, to allow customization of reporting and
+processing the result of running test suites.
+
+@node SRFI 64 Rationale
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Rationale
+
+The Scheme community needs a standard for writing test suites.  Every
+SRFI or other library should come with a test suite.  Such a test suite
+must be portable, without requiring any non-standard features, such as
+modules.  The test suite implementation or "runner" need not be
+portable, but it is desirable that it be possible to write a portable
+basic implementation.
+
+There are other testing frameworks written in Scheme, including
+@url{https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/, RackUnit}.  However
+RackUnit is not portable.  It is also a bit on the verbose side.  It
+would be useful to have a bridge between this framework and RackUnit so
+RackUnit tests could run under this framework and vice versa.  There
+exists also at least one Scheme wrapper providing a Scheme interface to
+the ``standard'' @url{https://www.junit.org/, JUnit} API for Java.  It
+would be useful to have a bridge so that tests written using this
+framework can run under a JUnit runner.  Neither of these features are
+part of this specification.
+
+This API makes use of implicit dynamic state, including an implicit
+``test runner''.  This makes the API convenient and terse to use, but it
+may be a little less elegant and ``compositional'' than using explicit
+test objects, such as JUnit-style frameworks.  It is not claimed to
+follow either object-oriented or functional design principles, but I
+hope it is useful and convenient to use and extend.
+
+This proposal allows converting a Scheme source file to a
+test suite by just adding a few macros.  You don't have to
+write the entire file in a new form, thus you don't have to
+re-indent it.
+
+All names defined by the API start with the prefix @samp{test-}.  All
+function-like forms are defined as syntax.  They may be implemented as
+functions or macros or built-ins.  The reason for specifying them as
+syntax is to allow specific tests to be skipped without evaluating
+sub-expressions, or for implementations to add features such as printing
+line numbers or catching exceptions.
+
+@node SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
+
+Let's start with a simple example.  This is a complete self-contained
+test-suite.
+
+@lisp
+;; Initialize and give a name to a simple testsuite.
+(test-begin "vec-test")
+(define v (make-vector 5 99))
+;; Require that an expression evaluate to true.
+(test-assert (vector? v))
+;; Test that an expression is eqv? to some other expression.
+(test-eqv 99 (vector-ref v 2))
+(vector-set! v 2 7)
+(test-eqv 7 (vector-ref v 2))
+;; Finish the testsuite, and report results.
+(test-end "vec-test")
+@end lisp
+
+This testsuite could be saved in its own source file.  Nothing else is
+needed: We do not require any top-level forms, so it is easy to wrap an
+existing program or test to this form, without adding indentation.  It
+is also easy to add new tests, without having to name individual tests
+(though that is optional).
+
+Test cases are executed in the context of a @dfn{test runner}, which is
+a object that accumulates and reports test results.  This specification
+defines how to create and use custom test runners, but implementations
+should also provide a default test runner.  It is suggested (but not
+required) that loading the above file in a top-level environment will
+cause the tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default
+test runner, and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed in
+an implementation-specified manner.
+
+@subsubheading Simple test-cases
+
+Primitive test cases test that a given condition is true.  They may have
+a name.  The core test case form is @code{test-assert}:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-assert [test-name] expression
+
+This evaluates the @var{expression}.  The test passes if the result is
+true; if the result is false, a test failure is reported.  The test also
+fails if an exception is raised, assuming the implementation has a way
+to catch exceptions.  How the failure is reported depends on the test
+runner environment.  The @var{test-name} is a string that names the test
+case.  (Though the @var{test-name} is a string literal in the examples,
+it is an expression.  It is evaluated only once.)  It is used when
+reporting errors, and also when skipping tests, as described below.  It
+is an error to invoke @code{test-assert}if there is no current test
+runner.
+@end deffn
+
+The following forms may be more convenient than using @code{test-assert}
+directly:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-eqv [test-name] expected test-expr
+
+This is equivalent to:
+
+@lisp
+(test-assert [@var{test-name}] (eqv? @var{expected} @var{test-expr}))
+@end lisp
+
+@end deffn
+
+Similarly @code{test-equal} and @code{test-eq} are shorthand for
+@code{test-assert} combined with @code{equal?} or @code{eq?},
+respectively:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-equal [test-name] expected test-expr
+@deffnx {Scheme Syntax} test-eq [test-name] expected test-expr
+
+Here is a simple example:
+
+@lisp
+(define (mean x y) (/ (+ x y) 2.0))
+(test-eqv 4 (mean 3 5))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+For testing approximate equality of inexact reals
+we can use @code{test-approximate}:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-approximate [test-name] expected test-expr error
+
+This is equivalent to (except that each argument is only evaluated
+once):
+
+@lisp
+(test-assert [test-name]
+  (and (>= test-expr (- expected error))
+       (<= test-expr (+ expected error))))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Tests for catching errors
+
+We need a way to specify that evaluation @emph{should} fail.  This
+verifies that errors are detected when required.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-error [[test-name] error-type] test-expr
+
+Evaluating @var{test-expr} is expected to signal an error.  The kind of
+error is indicated by @var{error-type}.
+
+If the @var{error-type} is left out, or it is @code{#t}, it means "some
+kind of unspecified error should be signaled".  For example:
+
+@lisp
+(test-error #t (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
+@end lisp
+
+This specification leaves it implementation-defined (or for a future
+specification) what form @var{test-error} may take, though all
+implementations must allow @code{#t}.  Some implementations may support
+@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-35/srfi-35.html, SRFI-35's
+conditions}, but these are only standardized for
+@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-36/srfi-36.html, SRFI-36's I/O
+conditions}, which are seldom useful in test suites.  An implementation
+may also allow implementation-specific ``exception types''.  For example
+Java-based implementations may allow the names of Java exception
+classes:
+
+@lisp
+;; Kawa-specific example
+(test-error <java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException> (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
+@end lisp
+
+An implementation that cannot catch exceptions should skip
+@code{test-error} forms.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Testing syntax
+
+Testing syntax is tricky, especially if we want to check that invalid
+syntax is causing an error.  The following utility function can help:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-read-eval-string string
+
+This function parses @var{string} (using @code{read}) and evaluates the
+result.  The result of evaluation is returned from
+@code{test-read-eval-string}.  An error is signalled if there are unread
+characters after the @code{read} is done.  For example:
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4)")} @i{evaluates to} @code{7}.
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4")} @i{signals an error}.
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4) ")} @i{signals an error}, because
+there is extra ``junk'' (@i{i.e.} a space) after the list is read.
+
+The @code{test-read-eval-string} used in tests:
+
+@lisp
+(test-equal 7 (test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4)"))
+(test-error (test-read-eval-string "(+ 3"))
+(test-equal #\newline (test-read-eval-string "#\\newline"))
+(test-error (test-read-eval-string "#\\newlin"))
+;; Skip the next 2 tests unless srfi-62 is available.
+(test-skip (cond-expand (srfi-62 0) (else 2)))
+(test-equal 5 (test-read-eval-string "(+ 1 #;(* 2 3) 4)"))
+(test-equal '(x z) (test-read-string "(list 'x #;'y 'z)"))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Test groups and paths
+
+A @dfn{test group} is a named sequence of forms containing testcases,
+expressions, and definitions.  Entering a group sets the @dfn{test group
+name}; leaving a group restores the previous group name.  These are
+dynamic (run-time) operations, and a group has no other effect or
+identity.  Test groups are informal groupings: they are neither Scheme
+values, nor are they syntactic forms.
+@c (More formal <q>test suite</q> values are introduced below.)
+A test group may contain nested inner test groups.
+The @dfn{test group path} is a list of the currently-active
+(entered) test group names, oldest (outermost) first.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-begin suite-name [count]
+
+A @code{test-begin} enters a new test group.  The @var{suite-name}
+becomes the current test group name, and is added to the end of the test
+group path.  Portable test suites should use a string literal for
+@var{suite-name}; the effect of expressions or other kinds of literals
+is unspecified.
+
+@emph{Rationale:} In some ways using symbols would be preferable.
+However, we want human-readable names, and standard Scheme does not
+provide a way to include spaces or mixed-case text in literal symbols.
+
+The optional @var{count} must match the number of test-cases executed by
+this group.  (Nested test groups count as a single test case for this
+count.)  This extra test may be useful to catch cases where a test
+doesn't get executed because of some unexpected error.
+
+Additionally, if there is no currently executing test runner,
+one is installed in an implementation-defined manner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-end [suite-name]
+
+A @code{test-end} leaves the current test group.
+An error is reported if the @var{suite-name} does not
+match the current test group name.
+@c If it does match an earlier name in the test group path, intervening
+@c groups are left.
+
+Additionally, if the matching @code{test-begin}installed a new
+test-runner, then the @code{test-end} will uninstall it, after reporting
+the accumulated test results in an implementation-defined manner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-group suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{}
+
+Equivalent to:
+
+@lisp
+(if (not (test-to-skip% (var suite-name)))
+  (dynamic-wind
+    (lambda () (test-begin (var suite-name)))
+    (lambda () (var decl-or-expr) ...)
+    (lambda () (test-end (var suite-name)))))
+@end lisp
+
+This is usually equivalent to executing the @var{decl-or-expr}s
+within the named test group.  However, the entire group is skipped
+if it matched an active @code{test-skip} (see later).
+Also, the @code{test-end} is executed in case of an exception.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Handling set-up and cleanup
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-group-with-cleanup suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{} cleanup-form
+
+Execute each of the @var{decl-or-expr} forms in order (as in a
+@var{<body>}), and then execute the @var{cleanup-form}.  The latter
+should be executed even if one of a @var{decl-or-expr} forms raises an
+exception (assuming the implementation has a way to catch exceptions).
+
+For example:
+
+@lisp
+(let ((f (open-output-file "log")))
+  (test-group-with-cleanup "test-file"
+    (do-a-bunch-of-tests f)
+    (close-output-port f)))
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@node SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
+
+The following describes features for controlling which tests to execute,
+or specifying that some tests are @emph{expected} to fail.
+
+@subsubheading Test specifiers
+
+Sometimes we want to only run certain tests, or we know that certain
+tests are expected to fail.  A @dfn{test specifier} is one-argument
+function that takes a test-runner and returns a boolean.  The specifier
+may be run before a test is performed, and the result may control
+whether the test is executed.  For convenience, a specifier may also be
+a non-procedure value, which is coerced to a specifier procedure, as
+described below for @var{count} and @var{name}.
+
+A simple example is:
+
+@lisp
+(if (var some-condition)  (test-skip 2)) ;; skip next 2 tests
+@end lisp
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-match-name name
+
+The resulting specifier matches if the current test name (as returned by
+@code{test-runner-test-name}) is @code{equal?} to @var{name}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-nth n [count]
+
+This evaluates to a @emph{stateful} predicate: A counter keeps track of
+how many times it has been called.  The predicate matches the @var{n}'th
+time it is called (where @code{1} is the first time), and the next
+@samp{(- @var{count} 1)} times, where @var{count} defaults to @code{1}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-any specifier @dots{}
+
+The resulting specifier matches if any @var{specifier} matches.  Each
+@var{specifier} is applied, in order, so side-effects from a later
+@var{specifier} happen even if an earlier @var{specifier} is true.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-all specifier @dots{}
+
+The resulting specifier matches if each @var{specifier} matches.  Each
+@var{specifier} is applied, in order, so side-effects from a later
+@var{specifier} happen even if an earlier @var{specifier} is false.
+@end deffn
+
+@var{count} @i{(i.e. an integer)}
+Convenience short-hand for: @samp{(test-match-nth 1 @var{count})}.
+
+@var{name} @i{(i.e. a string)}
+Convenience short-hand for @samp{(test-match-name @var{name})}.
+
+@subsubheading Skipping selected tests
+
+In some cases you may want to skip a test.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-skip specifier
+
+Evaluating @code{test-skip} adds the resulting @var{specifier} to the
+set of currently active skip-specifiers.  Before each test (or
+@code{test-group}) the set of active skip-specifiers are applied to the
+active test-runner.  If any specifier matches, then the test is skipped.
+
+For convenience, if the @var{specifier} is a string that is syntactic
+sugar for @code{(test-match-name @var{specifier})}.  For example:
+
+@lisp
+(test-skip "test-b")
+(test-assert "test-a")   ;; executed
+(test-assert "test-b")   ;; skipped
+@end lisp
+
+Any skip specifiers introduced by a @code{test-skip} are removed by a
+following non-nested @code{test-end}.
+
+@lisp
+(test-begin "group1")
+(test-skip "test-a")
+(test-assert "test-a")   ;; skipped
+(test-end "group1")      ;; Undoes the prior test-skip
+(test-assert "test-a")   ;; executed
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Expected failures
+
+Sometimes you know a test case will fail, but you don't have time to or
+can't fix it.  Maybe a certain feature only works on certain platforms.
+However, you want the test-case to be there to remind you to fix it.
+You want to note that such tests are expected to fail.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-expect-fail specifier
+
+Matching tests (where matching is defined as in @code{test-skip})
+are expected to fail.  This only affects test reporting,
+not test execution.  For example:
+
+@lisp
+(test-expect-fail 2)
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to fail
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to fail
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to pass
+@end lisp
+@end deffn
+
+@node SRFI 64 Test-runner
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Test-runner
+
+A @dfn{test-runner} is an object that runs a test-suite, and manages the
+state.  The test group path, and the sets skip and expected-fail
+specifiers are part of the test-runner.  A test-runner will also
+typically accumulate statistics about executed tests,
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner? value
+
+True if and only if @var{value} is a test-runner object.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-current
+@deffnx {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-current runner
+
+Get or set the current test-runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-get
+
+Same as @code{(test-runner-current)}, but throws an exception if there
+is no current test-runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-simple
+
+Creates a new simple test-runner, that prints errors and a summary on
+the standard output port.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-null
+
+Creates a new test-runner, that does nothing with the test results.
+This is mainly meant for extending when writing a custom runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-create
+
+Create a new test-runner.  Equivalent to @samp{((test-runner-factory))}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-factory
+@deffnx {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-factory factory
+
+Get or set the current test-runner factory.  A factory is a
+zero-argument function that creates a new test-runner.  The default
+value is @code{test-runner-simple}.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Running specific tests with a specified runner
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-apply [runner] specifier @dots{} procedure
+
+Calls @var{procedure} with no arguments using the specified @var{runner}
+as the current test-runner.  If @var{runner} is omitted, then
+@code{(test-runner-current)} is used.  (If there is no current runner,
+one is created as in @code{test-begin}.)  If one or more
+@var{specifier}s are listed then only tests matching the
+@var{specifier}s are executed.  A @var{specifier} has the same form as
+one used for @code{test-skip}.  A test is executed if it matches any of
+the @var{specifier}s in the @code{test-apply} @emph{and} does not match
+any active @code{test-skip} specifiers.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-with-runner runner decl-or-expr @dots{}
+
+Executes each @var{decl-or-expr} in order in a context where the current
+test-runner is @var{runner}.
+@end deffn
+
+@node SRFI 64 Test results
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Test results
+
+Running a test sets various status properties in the current test-runner.
+This can be examined by a custom test-runner,
+or (more rarely) in a test-suite.
+
+@subsubheading Result kind
+
+Running a test may yield one of the following
+status symbols:
+
+@table @asis
+@item @code{'pass}
+The test passed, as expected.
+
+@item @code{'fail}
+The test failed (and was not expected to).
+
+@item @code{'xfail}
+The test failed and was expected to.
+
+@item @code{'xpass}
+The test passed, but was expected to fail.
+
+@item @code{'skip}
+The test was skipped.
+@end table
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-kind [runner]
+
+Returns one of the above result codes from the most recent tests.
+Returns @code{#f} if no tests have been run yet.  If we've started on a
+new test, but don't have a result yet, then the result kind is
+@code{'xfail} if the test is expected to fail, @code{'skip} if the test
+is supposed to be skipped, or @code{#f} otherwise.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-passed? [runner]
+
+True if the value of @samp{(test-result-kind [@var{runner}])} is one of
+@code{'pass} or @code{'xpass}.  This is a convenient shorthand that
+might be useful in a test suite to only run certain tests if the
+previous test passed.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Test result properties
+
+A test runner also maintains a set of more detailed
+``result@tie{}properties'' associated with the current or most recent
+test.  (I.e. the properties of the most recent test are available as
+long as a new test hasn't started.)  Each property has a name (a symbol)
+and a value (any value).  Some properties are standard or set by the
+implementation; implementations can add more.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-ref runner pname [default]
+
+Returns the property value associated with the @var{pname} property name
+(a symbol).  If there is no value associated with @var{pname} return
+@var{default}, or @code{#f} if @var{default} isn't specified.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-result-set! runner pname value
+
+Sets the property value associated with the @var{pname} property name to
+@var{value}.  Usually implementation code should call this function, but
+it may be useful for a custom test-runner to add extra properties.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-remove runner pname
+
+Remove the property with the name @var{pname}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-clear runner
+
+Remove all result properties.  The implementation automatically calls
+@code{test-result-clear} at the start of a @code{test-assert} and
+similar procedures.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-alist runner
+
+Returns an association list of the current result properties.  It is
+unspecified if the result shares state with the test-runner.  The result
+should not be modified; on the other hand, the result may be implicitly
+modified by future @code{test-result-set!} or @code{test-result-remove}
+calls.  However, a @code{test-result-clear} does not modify the returned
+alist.  Thus you can ``archive'' result objects from previous runs.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Standard result properties
+
+The set of available result properties is implementation-specific.
+However, it is suggested that the following might be provided:
+@table @asis
+
+@item @code{'result-kind}
+The result kind, as defined previously.
+This is the only mandatory result property.
+@code{(test-result-kind @var{runner})} is equivalent to:
+@code{(test-result-ref  @var{runner} 'result-kind)}
+
+@item @code{'source-file}
+@itemx @code{'source-line}
+If known, the location of test statements (such as @code{test-assert})
+in test suite source code.
+
+@item @code{'source-form}
+The source form, if meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'expected-value}
+The expected non-error result, if meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'expected-error}
+The @var{error-type}specified in a @code{test-error}, if it meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'actual-value}
+The actual non-error result value, if meaningful and known.
+
+@item @code{'actual-error}
+The error value, if an error was signalled and it is known.
+The actual error value is implementation-defined.
+@end table
+
+@node SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
+@subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
+
+This section specifies how to write a test-runner.  It can be ignored if
+you just want to write test-cases.
+
+@subsubheading Call-back functions
+
+These call-back functions are ``methods'' (in the object-oriented sense)
+of a test-runner.  A method @code{test-runner-on-@var{event}} is called
+by the implementation when @var{event} happens.
+
+To define (set) the callback function for @var{event} use the following
+expression.  (This is normally done when initializing a test-runner.)
+
+@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event}! @var{runner} @var{event-function})}
+
+An @var{event-function} takes a test-runner argument, and possibly other
+arguments, depending on the @var{event}.
+
+To extract (get) the callback function for @var{event} do this:
+@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event} @var{runner})}
+
+To extract call the callback function for @var{event} use the following
+expression.  (This is normally done by the implementation core.)
+@samp{((test-runner-on-@var{event} @var{runner}) @var{runner}
+@var{other-args} @dots{})}.
+
+The following call-back hooks are available.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-begin runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-begin! runner on-test-begin-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-test-begin-function runner
+
+The @var{on-test-begin-function} is called at the start of an
+individual testcase, before the test expression (and expected value) are
+evaluated.
+
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-end runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-end! runner on-test-end-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-test-end-function runner
+
+The @var{on-test-end-function} is called at the end of an
+individual testcase, when the result of the test is available.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-begin runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-begin! runner on-group-begin-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-group-begin-function runner suite-name count
+
+The @var{on-group-begin-function} is called by a @code{test-begin},
+including at the start of a @code{test-group}.  The @var{suite-name} is
+a Scheme string, and @var{count} is an integer or @code{#f}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-end runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-end! runner on-group-end-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-group-end-function runner
+
+The @var{on-group-end-function} is called by a @code{test-end},
+including at the end of a @code{test-group}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-count runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-count! runner on-bad-count-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-bad-count-function runner actual-count expected-count
+
+Called from @code{test-end} (before the @var{on-group-end-function} is
+called) if an @var{expected-count} was specified by the matching
+@code{test-begin} and the @var{expected-count} does not match the
+@var{actual-count} of tests actually executed or skipped.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-end-name runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-end-name! runner on-bad-end-name-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-bad-end-name-function runner begin-name end-name
+
+Called from @code{test-end} (before the @var{on-group-end-function} is
+called) if a @var{suite-name} was specified, and it did not that the
+name in the matching @code{test-begin}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-final runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-final! runner on-final-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-final-function runner
+
+The @var{on-final-function} takes one parameter (a test-runner) and
+typically displays a summary (count) of the tests.  The
+@var{on-final-function} is called after called the
+@var{on-group-end-function} correspondiong to the outermost
+@code{test-end}.  The default value is @code{test-on-final-simple} which
+writes to the standard output port the number of tests of the various
+kinds.
+@end deffn
+
+The default test-runner returned by @code{test-runner-simple} uses the
+following call-back functions:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-on-test-begin-simple runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-test-end-simple runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-group-begin-simple runner suite-name count
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-group-end-simple runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-bad-count-simple runner actual-count expected-count
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-bad-end-name-simple runner begin-name end-name
+
+You can call those if you want to write your own test-runner.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Test-runner components
+
+The following functions are for accessing the other components of a
+test-runner.  They would normally only be used to write a new
+test-runner or a match-predicate.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-pass-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that passed, and were expected to pass.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-fail-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that failed, but were expected to pass.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-xpass-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that passed, but were expected to fail.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-xfail-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests that failed, and were expected to pass.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-skip-count runner
+
+Returns the number of tests or test groups that were skipped.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-test-name runner
+
+Returns the name of the current test or test group, as a string.  During
+execution of @code{test-begin} this is the name of the test group;
+during the execution of an actual test, this is the name of the
+test-case.  If no name was specified, the name is the empty string.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-group-path runner
+
+A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group
+first.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-group-stack runner
+
+A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group
+last.  (This is more efficient than @code{test-runner-group-path}, since
+it doesn't require any copying.)
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-aux-value runner
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-aux-value! runner on-test
+
+Get or set the @code{aux-value} field of a test-runner.  This field is
+not used by this API or the @code{test-runner-simple} test-runner, but
+may be used by custom test-runners to store extra state.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-reset runner
+
+Resets the state of the @var{runner} to its initial state.
+@end deffn
+
+@subsubheading Example
+
+This is an example of a simple custom test-runner.
+Loading this program before running a test-suite will install
+it as the default test runner.
+
+@lisp
+(define (my-simple-runner filename)
+  (let ((runner (test-runner-null))
+	(port (open-output-file filename))
+        (num-passed 0)
+        (num-failed 0))
+    (test-runner-on-test-end! runner
+      (lambda (runner)
+        (case (test-result-kind runner)
+          ((pass xpass) (set! num-passed (+ num-passed 1)))
+          ((fail xfail) (set! num-failed (+ num-failed 1)))
+          (else #t))))
+    (test-runner-on-final! runner
+       (lambda (runner)
+          (format port "Passing tests: ~d.~%Failing tests: ~d.~%"
+                  num-passed num-failed)
+	  (close-output-port port)))
+    runner))
+(test-runner-factory
+ (lambda () (my-simple-runner "/tmp/my-test.log")))
+@end lisp
 
 @node SRFI-67
 @subsection SRFI-67 - Compare procedures

base-commit: d0790d766bedf08fb65231eff53f6c8044eb94f1
-- 
2.46.0

bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4384 bytes --]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

> diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> index 02da3e2f2..4d408d6cb 100644
> --- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> +++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> @@ -55,7 +56,7 @@ get the relevant SRFI documents from the SRFI home page
>  * SRFI-60::                     Integers as bits.
>  * SRFI-61::                     A more general `cond' clause
>  * SRFI-62::                     S-expression comments.
> -* SRFI-64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
> +* SRFI 64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.

If you change this for one, please harmonize the others (with or without
-). Consistency wins here.

> @@ -5290,12 +5291,827 @@ needed to get SRFI-61 itself.  Extended @code{cond} is documented in
…
> +There are other testing frameworks written in Scheme, including
> +@url{https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/, RackUnit}.  However
> +RackUnit is not portable.  It is also a bit on the verbose side.  It
> +would be useful to have a bridge between this framework and RackUnit so
> +RackUnit tests could run under this framework and vice versa.  There
> +exists also at least one Scheme wrapper providing a Scheme interface to
> +the ``standard'' @url{https://www.junit.org/, JUnit} API for Java.  It
> +would be useful to have a bridge so that tests written using this
> +framework can run under a JUnit runner.  Neither of these features are
> +part of this specification.

Is this relevant for Guile?
If not, I’d take the racket specific part out.

> +This API makes use of implicit dynamic state, including an implicit
> +``test runner''.  This makes the API convenient and terse to use, but it
> +may be a little less elegant and ``compositional'' than using explicit
> +test objects, such as JUnit-style frameworks.  It is not claimed to
> +follow either object-oriented or functional design principles, but I
> +hope it is useful and convenient to use and extend.

This sub-sentence ("but I hope...") isn’t needed here, I think.

> +Test cases are executed in the context of a @dfn{test runner}, which is
> +a object that accumulates and reports test results.  This
> specification

Typo: a object -> an object

(this might also be a good change/PR for srfi 64 itself ⇒ upstream)

> +defines how to create and use custom test runners, but implementations
> +should also provide a default test runner.  It is suggested (but not

Does Guile provide a default test runner?
⇒ that may be good to note instead of "should also".

> +required) that loading the above file in a top-level environment will
> +cause the tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default
> +test runner, and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed in
> +an implementation-specified manner.
…
> +For testing approximate equality of inexact reals
> +we can use @code{test-approximate}:
> +
> +@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-approximate [test-name] expected test-expr error
> +
> +This is equivalent to (except that each argument is only evaluated
> +once):
> +
> +@lisp
> +(test-assert [test-name]
> +  (and (>= test-expr (- expected error))
> +       (<= test-expr (+ expected error))))
> +@end lisp
> +@end deffn

It would be nice to have an explicit example here.

> +@lisp
> +(test-error #t (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
> +@end lisp
> +
> +This specification leaves it implementation-defined (or for a future
> +specification) what form @var{test-error} may take, though all
> +implementations must allow @code{#t}.

It would be good to show what Guile accepts instead.

…
> +@lisp
> +;; Kawa-specific example
> +(test-error <java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException> (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
> +@end lisp

An example with Guile would be good.
> +@subsubheading Test specifiers
> +
> +Sometimes we want to only run certain tests, or we know that certain
> +tests are expected to fail.  A @dfn{test specifier} is one-argument
> +function that takes a test-runner and returns a boolean.  The
> specifier

is *a* one-argument function
(also for upstream)

Aside from these, this patch looks good to me. 
Thank you!

Can you send one more iteration of the patch?

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi,

Finally acting on this, now that it's already been merged by Ludovic
^^'.

"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
>> index 02da3e2f2..4d408d6cb 100644
>> --- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
>> +++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
>> @@ -55,7 +56,7 @@ get the relevant SRFI documents from the SRFI home page
>>  * SRFI-60::                     Integers as bits.
>>  * SRFI-61::                     A more general `cond' clause
>>  * SRFI-62::                     S-expression comments.
>> -* SRFI-64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
>> +* SRFI 64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
>
> If you change this for one, please harmonize the others (with or without
> -). Consistency wins here.

Ludovic kept the current convention, so that's tackled.

>> @@ -5290,12 +5291,827 @@ needed to get SRFI-61 itself.  Extended @code{cond} is documented in
> …
>> +There are other testing frameworks written in Scheme, including
>> +@url{https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/, RackUnit}.  However
>> +RackUnit is not portable.  It is also a bit on the verbose side.  It
>> +would be useful to have a bridge between this framework and RackUnit so
>> +RackUnit tests could run under this framework and vice versa.  There
>> +exists also at least one Scheme wrapper providing a Scheme interface to
>> +the ``standard'' @url{https://www.junit.org/, JUnit} API for Java.  It
>> +would be useful to have a bridge so that tests written using this
>> +framework can run under a JUnit runner.  Neither of these features are
>> +part of this specification.
>
> Is this relevant for Guile?
> If not, I’d take the racket specific part out.

It's relevant to the context in which this SRFI was created.  Not
critical for Guile, but maybe nice for the reader wanting to know the
full story.  I don't feel strongly about removing it though.

>> +This API makes use of implicit dynamic state, including an implicit
>> +``test runner''.  This makes the API convenient and terse to use, but it
>> +may be a little less elegant and ``compositional'' than using explicit
>> +test objects, such as JUnit-style frameworks.  It is not claimed to
>> +follow either object-oriented or functional design principles, but I
>> +hope it is useful and convenient to use and extend.
>
> This sub-sentence ("but I hope...") isn’t needed here, I think.

I turned it into 'but it is hoped', i.e. neutral tone at least.

>> +Test cases are executed in the context of a @dfn{test runner}, which is
>> +a object that accumulates and reports test results.  This
>> specification
>
> Typo: a object -> an object
>
> (this might also be a good change/PR for srfi 64 itself ⇒ upstream)

Thanks.  Fixed, and an upstream PR already submitted for this one and
others you found:
<https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-64/pull/9>.

>> +defines how to create and use custom test runners, but implementations
>> +should also provide a default test runner.  It is suggested (but not
>
> Does Guile provide a default test runner?
> ⇒ that may be good to note instead of "should also".

I've added to this paragraph documenting what the implementation in
Guile does:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
modified   doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
@@ -5393,7 +5393,25 @@ should also provide a default test runner.  It is suggested (but not
 required) that loading the above file in a top-level environment will
 cause the tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default
 test runner, and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed in
-an implementation-specified manner.
+an implementation-specified manner.  The SRFI 64 implementation used in
+Guile provides such a default test runner; running the above snippet at
+the REPL prints:
+
+@example
+*** Entering test group: vec-test ***
+$1 = #t
+* PASS:
+$2 = ((pass . 1))
+* PASS:
+$3 = ((pass . 2))
+* PASS:
+$4 = ((pass . 3))
+*** Leaving test group: vec-test ***
+*** Test suite finished. ***
+*** # of expected passes    : 3
+@end example
+
+It also returns the @code{<test-runner>} object.

 @subsubheading Simple test-cases
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


>> +required) that loading the above file in a top-level environment will
>> +cause the tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default
>> +test runner, and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed in
>> +an implementation-specified manner.
> …
>> +For testing approximate equality of inexact reals
>> +we can use @code{test-approximate}:
>> +
>> +@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-approximate [test-name] expected test-expr error
>> +
>> +This is equivalent to (except that each argument is only evaluated
>> +once):
>> +
>> +@lisp
>> +(test-assert [test-name]
>> +  (and (>= test-expr (- expected error))
>> +       (<= test-expr (+ expected error))))
>> +@end lisp
>> +@end deffn
>
> It would be nice to have an explicit example here.
>

I've added an example:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
@@ -5455,6 +5473,14 @@ once):
   (and (>= test-expr (- expected error))
        (<= test-expr (+ expected error))))
 @end lisp
+
+Here's an example:
+@lisp
+(test-approximate "is 22/7 within 1% of π?"
+ 3.1415926535
+ 22/7
+ 1/100)
+@end lisp
 @end deffn

 @subsubheading Tests for catching errors
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>> +@lisp
>> +(test-error #t (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
>> +@end lisp
>> +
>> +This specification leaves it implementation-defined (or for a future
>> +specification) what form @var{test-error} may take, though all
>> +implementations must allow @code{#t}.
>
> It would be good to show what Guile accepts instead.

I've kept the original text, but appended this paragraph to it:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
@@ -5492,6 +5518,23 @@ classes:

 An implementation that cannot catch exceptions should skip
 @code{test-error} forms.
+
+The SRFI 64 implementation in Guile supports specifying @var{error-type}
+as either:
+@iterate
+@item
+@code{#f}, meaning the test is @emph{not} expected to produce an error
+@item
+@code{#t}, meaning the test is expected to produce an error, of any type
+@item
+A native exception type, as created via @code{make-exception-type} or
+@code{make-condition-type} from SRFI-35
+@item
+A predicate, which will be applied to the exception caught
+to determine whether is it of the right type
+@item
+A symbol, for the exception kind of legacy
+@code{make-exception-from-throw} style exceptions.
 @end deffn

 @subsubheading Testing syntax
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> …
>> +@lisp
>> +;; Kawa-specific example
>> +(test-error <java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException> (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
>> +@end lisp
>
> An example with Guile would be good.

I've added this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
 @end deffn

+Below are some examples valid in Guile:
+
+@lisp
+(test-error "expect old-style exception kind"
+ 'numerical-overflow
+ (/ 1 0))
+@end lisp
+
+@lisp
+(use-modules (ice-9 exceptions)) ;for standard exception types
+
+(test-error "expect a native exception type"
+ &warning
+ (raise-exception (make-warning)))
+
+(test-error "expect a native exception, using predicate"
+ warning?
+ (raise-exception (make-warning)))
+@end lisp
+
+@lisp
+(use-modules (srfi srfi-35))
+
+(test-error "expect a serious SRFI 35 condition type"
+ &serious
+ (raise-exception (condition (&serious))))
+
+(test-error "expect a serious SRFI 35 condition type, using predicate"
+ serious-condition?
+ (raise-exception (condition (&serious))))
+@end lisp
+
 @subsubheading Testing syntax
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


>> +@subsubheading Test specifiers
>> +
>> +Sometimes we want to only run certain tests, or we know that certain
>> +tests are expected to fail.  A @dfn{test specifier} is one-argument
>> +function that takes a test-runner and returns a boolean.  The
>> specifier
>
> is *a* one-argument function
> (also for upstream)

Fixed.

> Aside from these, this patch looks good to me.
> Thank you!

Thank you.  As I said, it's been applied already, thanks to Ludovic.
I'll try ensure this follow-up also does!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
> adjustment.
>
> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.

I think important question to ask here is whether this manual section
documents SRFI-64 or what Guile ships as SRFI-64.  Current
implementation shipped by Guile has many quirks that do not conform to
the specification.

> +@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
> +@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.

Based on this I believe it describes the specification.

I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior
described by the manual does not match the implementation shipped).

Have a nice day,
Tomas

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Tomas,

Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
>> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
>> adjustment.
>>
>> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.
>
> I think important question to ask here is whether this manual section
> documents SRFI-64 or what Guile ships as SRFI-64.  Current
> implementation shipped by Guile has many quirks that do not conform to
> the specification.
>
>> +@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
>> +@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
>
> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.

That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
the current implementation in Guix does.

> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior

There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
implementation flavor ;-).  The one in Guile is pretty stock.

> described by the manual does not match the implementation shipped).

I'd consider different behavior in the implementation compared to the
specification bugs.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Taylan Kammer]

On 26.09.2024 15:35, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
>>> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
>>> adjustment.
>>>
>>> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.
>> I think important question to ask here is whether this manual section
>> documents SRFI-64 or what Guile ships as SRFI-64.  Current
>> implementation shipped by Guile has many quirks that do not conform to
>> the specification.
>>
>>> +@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
>>> +@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
>> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
> That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
> things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
> the current implementation in Guix does.
>
>> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
>> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior
> There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
> implementation flavor ;-).  The one in Guile is pretty stock.
>
>> described by the manual does not match the implementation shipped).
> I'd consider different behavior in the implementation compared to the
> specification bugs.
>

Let me once again advertise my implementation of SRFI 64, found here:

    https://codeberg.org/taylan/scheme-srfis/

The code is more readable and better structured, has fewer bugs (obeys the specification), and adds a small number of useful extensions, as explained here:

    https://codeberg.org/taylan/scheme-srfis/#srfi-64

The output of the default test runner is also a lot more informative, and handles nested test groups. (Prints the entire "path" hierarchy of the current test.) It's also more verbose though, which may be a matter of taste: It prints something for every test executed, whereas the reference implementation (the one used by Guile) only prints something for failed tests.

Sadly, the patch I previously sent to Guile for switching to this implementation was ignored, and Guile's R7RS support is still insufficient to use the R7RS SRFI libraries "out of the box."

However, for the convenience of Guile users, the latest commit contains the directory "guile-srfi-64" in the repo's root, which contains a copy of the implementation with file naming and module boilerplate that should work with all recent Guile versions. So, you can use it by adding the following to your GUILE_LOAD_PATH:

    $scheme_srfis_repo_root/guile-srfi-64

E.g. I can start guile like this, to use it in lieu of the implementation that ships with Guile:

    GUILE_LOAD_PATH=/home/taylan/src/scheme-srfis/guile-srfi-64 guile


Maybe someone will want to try it out, and push for its inclusion in Guile if they agree that it's a superior implementation.


All the best,

Taylan

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxime Devos via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1622 bytes --]


>> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
>
>That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
>things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
>the current implementation in Guix does.

I assume Guix->Guile.

This modification of “left to the implementation” -> “what Guile does” is problematic, since it misleads readers into thinking this is the standard behaviour (it is after all named SRFI 64, not GRFI 64).

“What Guile does” is also important information to have.

To avoid this problem, when it documents a choice made by Guile, it should indicate in some way that this is Guile behaviour.
(E.g.: “It is left to the implementation what happens when A. Guile chooses to B.”, or “It is left to the implementation what happens when A. Guile currently chooses to B, but may choose differently in future versions.”)

>> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
>> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior
>There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
implementation flavor ;-).  The one in Guile is pretty stock.

Then Guile flavour is stock flavour, and stock flavour isn’t specification vanilla. From what I’ve heard, it’s not just sprinkles added to vanilla, it also has bugs (not the crunchy food kind).

>> described by the manual does not match the implementation shipped).
>I'd consider different behavior in the implementation compared to the
specification bugs.

See response by Taylan Kammer.

Best regards,
Maxime Devos

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3489 bytes --]

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Taylan Kammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3877 bytes --]

On 29.09.2024 21:43, Maxime Devos via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote:
>
>  
>
> >> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
>
> > 
>
> >That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
>
> >things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
>
> >the current implementation in Guix does.
>
>  
>
> I assume Guix->Guile.
>
>  
>
> This modification of “left to the implementation” -> “what Guile does” is problematic, since it misleads readers into thinking this is the standard behaviour (it is after all named SRFI 64, not GRFI 64).
>
>  
>
> “What Guile does” is also important information to have.
>
>  
>
> To avoid this problem, when it documents a choice made by Guile, it should indicate in some way that this is Guile behaviour.
>
> (E.g.: “It is left to the implementation what happens when A. Guile chooses to B.”, or “It is left to the implementation what happens when A. Guile currently chooses to B, but may choose differently in future versions.”)
>
>  
>
To be fair to Guile, this is a problem caused by the reference implementation coming directly from SRFI 64. It doesn't properly follow its own specification.

I believe most Scheme implementations that support SRFI-64 just use the reference implementation, just like Guile does, so one could even say: There's the "on paper" standard of SRFI 64 (the spec), and then there's the de facto standard of SRFI 64 that basically all implementations use (the reference implementation provided by the SRFI 64 author), and Guile uses the latter like every other Scheme implementation.

I think the spec as written is more useful though, so I've made my implementation actually conform to it. Mainly, there's one significant difference: The test runner returned by `test-runner-simple` shouldn't use its `aux` field (and the spec explicitly claims that it doesn't), so users can use the simple test runner as a basis to extend upon, using the `aux` field to store any state that their custom extension to the runner may need to store. The `test-runner-simple` returned by the reference implementation actually *does* use the `aux` field for something internal already (name of a log file), in direct contradiction to what the spec states.

> >> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
>
> >> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior
>
> >There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
>
> implementation flavor ;-).  The one in Guile is pretty stock.
>
>  
>
> Then Guile flavour is stock flavour, and stock flavour isn’t specification vanilla. From what I’ve heard, it’s not just sprinkles added to vanilla, it also has bugs (not the crunchy food kind).
>
One or two bugs in the upstream reference implementation were actually fixed after I had pointed them out. From a quick glance, it doesn't seem Guile ever bothered to update, though, so I guess Guile still has them.

Further, on July 30, Tomas Volf sent a large number of SRFI-64 bug reports to the bug-guile mailing list. I didn't have time then, but will be responding to them now... I can see at least one clear bug he seems to have found, which my implementation doesn't seem to suffer from (simply thanks to clean coding practices). Maybe I'll find a couple more to fix, because my implementation was originally derived from the reference implementation so may still be sharing bugs with it. Some of them seem like issues with the spec instead... Anyway, I'll respond to them one by one.


Thanks for raising these issues,

Taylan


P.S.: I've been sending HTML email using Thunderbird lately. If it messes up the formatting too much, please do complain. Some of my contacts use HTML, and I haven't yet found a way to switch back and forth quickly in Thunderbird.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6223 bytes --]

bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:

>>> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
>>
>>That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
>>things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
>>the current implementation in Guix does.
>
> I assume Guix->Guile.
>
> This modification of “left to the implementation” -> “what Guile does” is problematic, since it misleads readers into thinking this is the standard behaviour (it is after all named SRFI 64, not GRFI 64).
>
> “What Guile does” is also important information to have.

Yes, I agree.  I think this is actually what I did, but my way to wording
of this above was not very good, and my memory fails. A diff of a
freshly "snarfed" [0] srfi-64.html (from its most recent commit) against
the documented submitted, which was hand-tuned:


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 49109 bytes --]

diff -u /tmp/srfi-64-resnarfed.texi /tmp/srfi-64-documented.texi
--- /tmp/srfi-64-resnarfed.texi	2024-10-02 15:57:27.562406299 +0900
+++ /tmp/srfi-64-documented.texi	2024-10-02 15:58:57.798218571 +0900
@@ -1,71 +1,58 @@
-@node SRFI 64
-@subsection SRFI 64: A Scheme API for test suites
-@cindex SRFI 64
-
-
 @node SRFI 64 Abstract
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Abstract
 
-
-This defines an API for writing @dfn{test suites}, to make it easy
-to portably test Scheme APIs, libraries, applications, and implementations.
-A test suite is a collection of @dfn{test cases} that execute
-in the context of a @dfn{test-runner}.  This specification
-also supports writing new test-runners, to allow customization
-of reporting and processing the result of running test suites.
+This defines an API for writing @dfn{test suites}, to make it easy to
+portably test Scheme APIs, libraries, applications, and implementations.
+A test suite is a collection of @dfn{test cases} that execute in the
+context of a @dfn{test-runner}.  This specification also supports
+writing new test-runners, to allow customization of reporting and
+processing the result of running test suites.
 
 @node SRFI 64 Rationale
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Rationale
 
-
-The Scheme community needs a standard for writing test suites.
-Every SRFI or other library should come with a test suite.
-Such a test suite must be portable, without requiring any
-non-standard features, such as modules.  The test suite implementation
-or "runner" need not be portable, but it is desirable that it be
-possible to write a portable basic implementation.
+The Scheme community needs a standard for writing test suites.  Every
+SRFI or other library should come with a test suite.  Such a test suite
+must be portable, without requiring any non-standard features, such as
+modules.  The test suite implementation or "runner" need not be
+portable, but it is desirable that it be possible to write a portable
+basic implementation.
 
 There are other testing frameworks written in Scheme, including
-@url{https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/, RackUnit}However RackUnit is not portable.
-It is also a bit on the verbose side.
-It would be useful to have a bridge between this framework and RackUnit
-so RackUnit tests could run under this framework and vice versa.
-There exists also at least one Scheme wrapper providing a Scheme interface
-to the ``standard''@url{https://www.junit.org/, JUnit} API for Java.
-It would be useful to have a bridge so that tests written using this
-framework can run under a JUnit runner.
-Neither of these features are part of this specification.
-
-This API makes use of implicit dynamic state, including an
-implicit ``test runner''.  This makes the API convenient
-and terse to use, but it may be a little less elegant and ``compositional''than using explicit test objects, such as JUnit-style frameworks.
-It is not claimed to follow either object-oriented or functional design
-principles, but I hope it is useful and convenient to use and extend.
+@url{https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/, RackUnit}.  However
+RackUnit is not portable.  It is also a bit on the verbose side.  It
+would be useful to have a bridge between this framework and RackUnit so
+RackUnit tests could run under this framework and vice versa.  There
+exists also at least one Scheme wrapper providing a Scheme interface to
+the ``standard'' @url{https://www.junit.org/, JUnit} API for Java.  It
+would be useful to have a bridge so that tests written using this
+framework can run under a JUnit runner.  Neither of these features are
+part of this specification.
+
+This API makes use of implicit dynamic state, including an implicit
+``test runner''.  This makes the API convenient and terse to use, but it
+may be a little less elegant and ``compositional'' than using explicit
+test objects, such as JUnit-style frameworks.  It is not claimed to
+follow either object-oriented or functional design principles, but I
+hope it is useful and convenient to use and extend.
 
 This proposal allows converting a Scheme source file to a
 test suite by just adding a few macros.  You don't have to
 write the entire file in a new form, thus you don't have to
 re-indent it.
 
-All names defined by the API start with the prefix @code{test-}All function-like forms are defined as syntax.  They may be implemented
-as functions or macros or built-ins.  The reason for specifying them as
-syntax is to allow specific tests to be skipped without evaluating sub-expressions, or for implementations
-to add features such as printing line numbers or catching exceptions.
-@c TODO: Review (delete/relocate) the following text (if any)
-@c orphaned by splicing the `(h1 Specification)' node.
-
-
-While this is a moderately complex specification,
-you should be able to write simple test suites after just reading the
-first few sections below.  More advanced functionality, such
-as writing a custom test-runner, is at the end of the specification.
+All names defined by the API start with the prefix @samp{test-}.  All
+function-like forms are defined as syntax.  They may be implemented as
+functions or macros or built-ins.  The reason for specifying them as
+syntax is to allow specific tests to be skipped without evaluating
+sub-expressions, or for implementations to add features such as printing
+line numbers or catching exceptions.
 
 @node SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
 
-
-Let's start with a simple example.
-This is a complete self-contained test-suite.
+Let's start with a simple example.  This is a complete self-contained
+test-suite.
 
 @lisp
 ;; Initialize and give a name to a simple testsuite.
@@ -81,73 +68,59 @@
 (test-end "vec-test")
 @end lisp
 
-This testsuite could be saved in its own source file.
-Nothing else is needed:
-We do not require any top-level forms, so it is easy
-to wrap an existing program or test to this form, without adding indentation.
-It is also easy to add new tests, without having to name individual
-tests (though that is optional).
-
-Test cases are executed in the context of a @dfn{test runner},
-which is a object that accumulates and reports test results.
-This specification defines how to create and use custom test runners,
-but implementations should also provide a default test runner.
-It is suggested (but not required) that loading the above
-file in a top-level environment will cause the
-tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default test runner,
-and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed
-in an implementation-specified manner.
+This testsuite could be saved in its own source file.  Nothing else is
+needed: We do not require any top-level forms, so it is easy to wrap an
+existing program or test to this form, without adding indentation.  It
+is also easy to add new tests, without having to name individual tests
+(though that is optional).
+
+Test cases are executed in the context of a @dfn{test runner}, which is
+a object that accumulates and reports test results.  This specification
+defines how to create and use custom test runners, but implementations
+should also provide a default test runner.  It is suggested (but not
+required) that loading the above file in a top-level environment will
+cause the tests to be executed using an implementation-specified default
+test runner, and @code{test-end} will cause a summary to be displayed in
+an implementation-specified manner.
 
 @subsubheading Simple test-cases
 
+Primitive test cases test that a given condition is true.  They may have
+a name.  The core test case form is @code{test-assert}:
 
-Primitive test cases test that a given condition is true.
-They may have a name.
-The core test case form is @code{test-assert}:
-
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-assert [test-name] expression
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-assert [test-name] expression
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+This evaluates the @var{expression}.  The test passes if the result is
+true; if the result is false, a test failure is reported.  The test also
+fails if an exception is raised, assuming the implementation has a way
+to catch exceptions.  How the failure is reported depends on the test
+runner environment.  The @var{test-name} is a string that names the test
+case.  (Though the @var{test-name} is a string literal in the examples,
+it is an expression.  It is evaluated only once.)  It is used when
+reporting errors, and also when skipping tests, as described below.  It
+is an error to invoke @code{test-assert}if there is no current test
+runner.
 @end deffn
 
+The following forms may be more convenient than using @code{test-assert}
+directly:
 
-This evaluates the @var{expression}The test passes if the result
-is true; if the result is false, a test failure is reported.
-The test also fails if an exception is raised, assuming the implementation
-has a way to catch exceptions.
-How the failure is reported depends on the test runner environment.
-The @var{test-name} is a string that names the test case.
-(Though the @var{test-name} is a string literal in the examples,
-it is an expression.  It is evaluated only once.)
-It is used when reporting errors, and also when skipping tests,
-as described below.
-It is an error to invoke @code{test-assert}if there is no current test runner.
-
-The following forms may be more convenient than
-using @code{test-assert} directly:
-
-
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-eqv [test-name] expected test-expr
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-eqv [test-name] expected test-expr
 
 This is equivalent to:
 
 @lisp
-(test-assert [@var{test-name}] (eqv? @var{expected}@var{test-expr}))
+(test-assert [@var{test-name}] (eqv? @var{expected} @var{test-expr}))
 @end lisp
 
-Similarly @code{test-equal} and @code{test-eq}are shorthand for @code{test-assert} combined with
-@code{equal?} or @code{eq?}, respectively:
-
-
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-equal [test-name] expected test-expr
-
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-eq [test-name] expected test-expr
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
 @end deffn
 
+Similarly @code{test-equal} and @code{test-eq} are shorthand for
+@code{test-assert} combined with @code{equal?} or @code{eq?},
+respectively:
+
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-equal [test-name] expected test-expr
+@deffnx {Scheme Syntax} test-eq [test-name] expected test-expr
 
 Here is a simple example:
 
@@ -155,56 +128,50 @@
 (define (mean x y) (/ (+ x y) 2.0))
 (test-eqv 4 (mean 3 5))
 @end lisp
+@end deffn
 
 For testing approximate equality of inexact reals
 we can use @code{test-approximate}:
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-approximate [test-name] expected test-expr error
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-approximate [test-name] expected test-expr error
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
-
-This is equivalent to (except that each argument is only evaluated once):
+This is equivalent to (except that each argument is only evaluated
+once):
 
 @lisp
 (test-assert [test-name]
   (and (>= test-expr (- expected error))
        (<= test-expr (+ expected error))))
 @end lisp
+@end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Tests for catching errors
 
+We need a way to specify that evaluation @emph{should} fail.  This
+verifies that errors are detected when required.
 
-We need a way to specify that evaluation @emph{should} fail.
-This verifies that errors are detected when required.
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-error [[test-name] error-type] test-expr
 
+Evaluating @var{test-expr} is expected to signal an error.  The kind of
+error is indicated by @var{error-type}.
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-error [[test-name] error-type] test-expr
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
-
-Evaluating @var{test-expr} is expected to signal an error.
-The kind of error is indicated by  @var{error-type}.
-
-If the @var{error-type} is left out, or it is
-@code{#t}, it means "some kind of unspecified error should be signaled".
-For example:
+If the @var{error-type} is left out, or it is @code{#t}, it means "some
+kind of unspecified error should be signaled".  For example:
 
 @lisp
 (test-error #t (vector-ref '#(1 2) 9))
 @end lisp
 
 This specification leaves it implementation-defined (or for a future
-specification) what form @var{test-error} may take,
-though all implementations must allow @code{#t}Some implementations may support
-@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-35/srfi-35.html, SRFI-35's conditions},
-but these are only standardized for
-@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-36/srfi-36.html, SRFI-36's I/O conditions}, which are seldom useful in test suites.
-An implementation may also allow implementation-specific
-``exception types''For example Java-based implementations may allow
-the names of Java exception classes:
+specification) what form @var{test-error} may take, though all
+implementations must allow @code{#t}.  Some implementations may support
+@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-35/srfi-35.html, SRFI-35's
+conditions}, but these are only standardized for
+@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-36/srfi-36.html, SRFI-36's I/O
+conditions}, which are seldom useful in test suites.  An implementation
+may also allow implementation-specific ``exception types''.  For example
+Java-based implementations may allow the names of Java exception
+classes:
 
 @lisp
 ;; Kawa-specific example
@@ -213,31 +180,23 @@
 
 An implementation that cannot catch exceptions should skip
 @code{test-error} forms.
+@end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Testing syntax
 
-
-Testing syntax is tricky, especially if we want to
-check that invalid syntax is causing an error.
-The following utility function can help:
-
+Testing syntax is tricky, especially if we want to check that invalid
+syntax is causing an error.  The following utility function can help:
 
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-read-eval-string string
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
-
-This function parses @var{string} (using @code{read})
-and evaluates the result.
-The result of evaluation is returned from @code{test-read-eval-string}An error is signalled if there are unread characters after the
-@code{read} is done.
-For example:
-@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4)")}@i{evaluates to}@code{7}.
-@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4")}@i{signals an error}.
-@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4) ")}@i{signals an error},
-because there is extra ``junk'' (@i{i.e.} a space) after the
-list is read.
 
+This function parses @var{string} (using @code{read}) and evaluates the
+result.  The result of evaluation is returned from
+@code{test-read-eval-string}.  An error is signalled if there are unread
+characters after the @code{read} is done.  For example:
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4)")} @i{evaluates to} @code{7}.
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4")} @i{signals an error}.
+@code{(test-read-eval-string "(+ 3 4) ")} @i{signals an error}, because
+there is extra ``junk'' (@i{i.e.} a space) after the list is read.
 
 The @code{test-read-eval-string} used in tests:
 
@@ -251,101 +210,81 @@
 (test-equal 5 (test-read-eval-string "(+ 1 #;(* 2 3) 4)"))
 (test-equal '(x z) (test-read-string "(list 'x #;'y 'z)"))
 @end lisp
+@end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Test groups and paths
 
-
 A @dfn{test group} is a named sequence of forms containing testcases,
-expressions, and definitions.
-Entering a group sets the @dfn{test group name}; leaving a
-group restores the previous group name.
-These are dynamic (run-time) operations, and a group has no
-other effect or identity.
-Test groups are informal groupings: they are neither
-Scheme values, nor are they syntactic forms.
+expressions, and definitions.  Entering a group sets the @dfn{test group
+name}; leaving a group restores the previous group name.  These are
+dynamic (run-time) operations, and a group has no other effect or
+identity.  Test groups are informal groupings: they are neither Scheme
+values, nor are they syntactic forms.
 @c (More formal <q>test suite</q> values are introduced below.)
-
-
 A test group may contain nested inner test groups.
 The @dfn{test group path} is a list of the currently-active
 (entered) test group names, oldest (outermost) first.
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-begin suite-name [count]
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-begin suite-name [count]
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
+A @code{test-begin} enters a new test group.  The @var{suite-name}
+becomes the current test group name, and is added to the end of the test
+group path.  Portable test suites should use a string literal for
+@var{suite-name}; the effect of expressions or other kinds of literals
+is unspecified.
 
-A @code{test-begin} enters a new test group.
-The @var{suite-name} becomes the current test group name,
-and is added to the end of the test group path.
-Portable test suites should use a string literal for @var{suite-name};
-the effect of expressions or other kinds of literals is unspecified.
-
-@b{Rationale:} In some ways using symbols would be preferable.
+@emph{Rationale:} In some ways using symbols would be preferable.
 However, we want human-readable names, and standard Scheme does not
-provide a way to include spaces or mixed-case text in
-literal symbols.
+provide a way to include spaces or mixed-case text in literal symbols.
 
-The optional @var{count} must match the number of
-test-cases executed by this group.
-(Nested test groups count as a single test case for this count.)
-This extra test may be useful to catch cases where a test doesn't
-get executed because of some unexpected error.
+The optional @var{count} must match the number of test-cases executed by
+this group.  (Nested test groups count as a single test case for this
+count.)  This extra test may be useful to catch cases where a test
+doesn't get executed because of some unexpected error.
 
 Additionally, if there is no currently executing test runner,
 one is installed in an implementation-defined manner.
-
-
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-end [suite-name]
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-end [suite-name]
 
 A @code{test-end} leaves the current test group.
 An error is reported if the @var{suite-name} does not
 match the current test group name.
-@c If it does match an earlier
-@c name in the test group path, intervening groups are left.
-
+@c If it does match an earlier name in the test group path, intervening
+@c groups are left.
 
+Additionally, if the matching @code{test-begin}installed a new
+test-runner, then the @code{test-end} will uninstall it, after reporting
+the accumulated test results in an implementation-defined manner.
+@end deffn
 
-Additionally, if the matching @code{test-begin}installed a new test-runner, then the @code{test-end}will uninstall it, after reporting the accumulated test
-results in an implementation-defined manner.
-
-@lisp
-(@b{test-group}@var{suite-name}@var{decl-or-expr} @dots{})
-@end lisp
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-group suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{}
 
 Equivalent to:
 
 @lisp
-(if (not (test-to-skip% @var{suite-name}))
+(if (not (test-to-skip% (var suite-name)))
   (dynamic-wind
-    (lambda () (test-begin @var{suite-name}))
-    (lambda () @var{decl-or-expr} @dots{})
-    (lambda () (test-end @var{suite-name}))))
+    (lambda () (test-begin (var suite-name)))
+    (lambda () (var decl-or-expr) ...)
+    (lambda () (test-end (var suite-name)))))
 @end lisp
 
 This is usually equivalent to executing the @var{decl-or-expr}s
 within the named test group.  However, the entire group is skipped
 if it matched an active @code{test-skip} (see later).
 Also, the @code{test-end} is executed in case of an exception.
+@end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Handling set-up and cleanup
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-group-with-cleanup suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{} cleanup-form
 
-
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-group-with-cleanup suite-name decl-or-expr @dots{} cleanup-form
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
-
-Execute each of the @var{decl-or-expr} forms in order
-(as in a @var{<body>}),
-and then execute the @var{cleanup-form}The latter should be executed even if
-one of a @var{decl-or-expr} forms raises an exception
-(assuming the implementation has a way to catch exceptions).
+Execute each of the @var{decl-or-expr} forms in order (as in a
+@var{<body>}), and then execute the @var{cleanup-form}.  The latter
+should be executed even if one of a @var{decl-or-expr} forms raises an
+exception (assuming the implementation has a way to catch exceptions).
 
 For example:
 
@@ -355,103 +294,77 @@
     (do-a-bunch-of-tests f)
     (close-output-port f)))
 @end lisp
-
-@b{Erratum note:}@url{https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-64/blob/4470ffdec71b1cf61633b664958a3ce5e6997710/srfi-64.html, Earlier versions} had a non-working example.
-
-@c <h3>Test suites</h3>
-@c <p>
-@c <i>(Not sure how useful this is, given <code>test-group</code>).</i>
-@c <p>A <dfn>test suite</dfn> is a test group that can (and must) be
-@c executed explicitly.
-@c <pre>
-@c (test-suite <var>suite-name</var> <var>decl-or-expr</var> @dots{})
-@c </pre>
-@c <p>
-@c The <df>test suite path</dfn> is the list of names of currently
-@c running testsuites, from outermost (oldest) to innermost (newest).
-@c <p>A <code>test-suite</code> form is equivalent to:
-@c <pre>
-@c (test-suite-register <var>suite-name</var>
-@c   (test-group <var>suite-name</var> <var>decl-or-expr</var> @dots{}))
-@c </pre>
-@c You can run previously registered test suite:
-@c <pre>
-@c (test-suite-run <var>suite-name</var>)
-@c </pre>
-
+@end deffn
 
 @node SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
 
-
 The following describes features for controlling which tests to execute,
 or specifying that some tests are @emph{expected} to fail.
 
 @subsubheading Test specifiers
 
-
-Sometimes we want to only run certain tests, or we know that
-certain tests are expected to fail.
-A @dfn{test specifier} is one-argument function that takes a test-runner
-and returns a boolean.  The specifier may be run before a test is performed,
-and the result may control whether the test is executed.
-For convenience, a specifier may also be a non-procedure value,
-which is coerced to a specifier procedure, as described below for
-@var{count} and @var{name}.
+Sometimes we want to only run certain tests, or we know that certain
+tests are expected to fail.  A @dfn{test specifier} is one-argument
+function that takes a test-runner and returns a boolean.  The specifier
+may be run before a test is performed, and the result may control
+whether the test is executed.  For convenience, a specifier may also be
+a non-procedure value, which is coerced to a specifier procedure, as
+described below for @var{count} and @var{name}.
 
 A simple example is:
 
 @lisp
-(if @var{some-condition}  (test-skip 2)) ;; skip next 2 tests
+(if (var some-condition)  (test-skip 2)) ;; skip next 2 tests
 @end lisp
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-match-name name
 
-The resulting specifier matches if the current test name (asreturned by@code{test-runner-test-name}) is@code{equal?}toname.
+The resulting specifier matches if the current test name (as returned by
+@code{test-runner-test-name}) is @code{equal?} to @var{name}.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-nth n [count]
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-match-nth n [count]
-
-This evaluates to a@emph{stateful}predicate: A counter keeps track ofhow many times it has been called.The predicate matches then'th time it is called(where@code{1}is the first time), andthe next
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+This evaluates to a @emph{stateful} predicate: A counter keeps track of
+how many times it has been called.  The predicate matches the @var{n}'th
+time it is called (where @code{1} is the first time), and the next
+@samp{(- @var{count} 1)} times, where @var{count} defaults to @code{1}.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-any specifier @dots{}
 
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+The resulting specifier matches if any @var{specifier} matches.  Each
+@var{specifier} is applied, in order, so side-effects from a later
+@var{specifier} happen even if an earlier @var{specifier} is true.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-match-all specifier @dots{}
 
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+The resulting specifier matches if each @var{specifier} matches.  Each
+@var{specifier} is applied, in order, so side-effects from a later
+@var{specifier} happen even if an earlier @var{specifier} is false.
 @end deffn
 
+@var{count} @i{(i.e. an integer)}
+Convenience short-hand for: @samp{(test-match-nth 1 @var{count})}.
 
-@var{count}@i{(i.e. an integer)}
-Convenience short-hand for: @code{(test-match-nth 1 @var{count})}.
-
-@var{name}@i{(i.e. a string)}
-Convenience short-hand for @code{(test-match-name @var{name})}.
+@var{name} @i{(i.e. a string)}
+Convenience short-hand for @samp{(test-match-name @var{name})}.
 
 @subsubheading Skipping selected tests
 
-
 In some cases you may want to skip a test.
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-skip specifier
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-skip specifier
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
-
-Evaluating @code{test-skip} adds the
-resulting @var{specifier}to the set of currently active skip-specifiers.
-Before each test (or @code{test-group})
-the set of active skip-specifiers are applied to the active test-runner.
-If any specifier matches, then the test is skipped.
+Evaluating @code{test-skip} adds the resulting @var{specifier} to the
+set of currently active skip-specifiers.  Before each test (or
+@code{test-group}) the set of active skip-specifiers are applied to the
+active test-runner.  If any specifier matches, then the test is skipped.
 
-For convenience, if the @var{specifier} is a string that
-is syntactic sugar for @code{(test-match-name @var{specifier})}For example:
+For convenience, if the @var{specifier} is a string that is syntactic
+sugar for @code{(test-match-name @var{specifier})}.  For example:
 
 @lisp
 (test-skip "test-b")
@@ -459,7 +372,8 @@
 (test-assert "test-b")   ;; skipped
 @end lisp
 
-Any skip specifiers introduced by a @code{test-skip}are removed by a following non-nested @code{test-end}.
+Any skip specifiers introduced by a @code{test-skip} are removed by a
+following non-nested @code{test-end}.
 
 @lisp
 (test-begin "group1")
@@ -468,21 +382,16 @@
 (test-end "group1")      ;; Undoes the prior test-skip
 (test-assert "test-a")   ;; executed
 @end lisp
+@end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Expected failures
 
+Sometimes you know a test case will fail, but you don't have time to or
+can't fix it.  Maybe a certain feature only works on certain platforms.
+However, you want the test-case to be there to remind you to fix it.
+You want to note that such tests are expected to fail.
 
-Sometimes you know a test case will fail, but you don't have time
-to or can't fix it.   Maybe a certain feature only works on certain platforms.
-However, you want the test-case to be there
-to remind you to fix it.  You want to note that
-such tests are expected to fail.
-
-
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-expect-fail specifier
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
-@end deffn
-
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-expect-fail specifier
 
 Matching tests (where matching is defined as in @code{test-skip})
 are expected to fail.  This only affects test reporting,
@@ -490,102 +399,95 @@
 
 @lisp
 (test-expect-fail 2)
-(test-eqv @dots{}) ;; expected to fail
-(test-eqv @dots{}) ;; expected to fail
-(test-eqv @dots{}) ;; expected to pass
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to fail
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to fail
+(test-eqv ...) ;; expected to pass
 @end lisp
+@end deffn
 
 @node SRFI 64 Test-runner
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Test-runner
 
-
-A @dfn{test-runner} is an object that runs a test-suite,
-and manages the state.  The test group path, and the sets skip and
-expected-fail specifiers are part of the test-runner.
-A test-runner will also typically accumulate statistics about executed tests.
-
-
+A @dfn{test-runner} is an object that runs a test-suite, and manages the
+state.  The test group path, and the sets skip and expected-fail
+specifiers are part of the test-runner.  A test-runner will also
+typically accumulate statistics about executed tests,
 
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner? value
 
-True iff@code{value}is a test-runner object.
+True if and only if @var{value} is a test-runner object.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-current
+@deffnx {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-current runner
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-current
-
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-current runner
-
-Get or set the current test-runner.If an implementation supports parameter objects(as in@url{https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-39/srfi-39.html, SRFI-39}),then@code{test-runner-current}can be a parameter object.Alternatively,@code{test-runner-current}may be implementedas a macro or functionthat uses a fluid or thread-local variable, or a plain global variable.
+Get or set the current test-runner.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-get
 
-Same as
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+Same as @code{(test-runner-current)}, but throws an exception if there
+is no current test-runner.
 @end deffn
 
-
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-simple
 
-Creates a new simple test-runner, that prints errors and a summaryon the standard output port.
+Creates a new simple test-runner, that prints errors and a summary on
+the standard output port.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-null
 
-Creates a new test-runner, that does nothing with the test results.This is mainly meant for extending when writing a custom runner.
+Creates a new test-runner, that does nothing with the test results.
+This is mainly meant for extending when writing a custom runner.
 @end deffn
 
-Implementations @emph{may} provide other test-runners, perhaps
-a @code{(test-runner-gui)}.
-
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-create
 
-Create a new test-runner.  Equivalent to
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+Create a new test-runner.  Equivalent to @samp{((test-runner-factory))}.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-factory
+@deffnx {Scheme Parameter} test-runner-factory factory
 
-
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-factory
-
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-factory factory
-
-Get or set the current test-runner factory.A factory is a zero-argument function that creates a new test-runner.The default value is@code{test-runner-simple},but implementations may provide a way to override the default.As with@code{test-runner-current}, this may be a parameter object,or use a per-thread, fluid, or global variable.
+Get or set the current test-runner factory.  A factory is a
+zero-argument function that creates a new test-runner.  The default
+value is @code{test-runner-simple}.
 @end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Running specific tests with a specified runner
 
-
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-apply [runner] specifier @dots{} procedure
 
-Callsprocedurewith no arguments using the specifiedrunneras the current test-runner.Ifrunneris omitted,then
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+Calls @var{procedure} with no arguments using the specified @var{runner}
+as the current test-runner.  If @var{runner} is omitted, then
+@code{(test-runner-current)} is used.  (If there is no current runner,
+one is created as in @code{test-begin}.)  If one or more
+@var{specifier}s are listed then only tests matching the
+@var{specifier}s are executed.  A @var{specifier} has the same form as
+one used for @code{test-skip}.  A test is executed if it matches any of
+the @var{specifier}s in the @code{test-apply} @emph{and} does not match
+any active @code{test-skip} specifiers.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-with-runner runner decl-or-expr @dots{}
 
-@c FIXME: Check deffn category and adjust '@end deffn' location
+Executes each @var{decl-or-expr} in order in a context where the current
+test-runner is @var{runner}.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @node SRFI 64 Test results
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Test results
 
-
 Running a test sets various status properties in the current test-runner.
 This can be examined by a custom test-runner,
 or (more rarely) in a test-suite.
 
 @subsubheading Result kind
 
-
 Running a test may yield one of the following
 status symbols:
+
 @table @asis
 @item @code{'pass}
 The test passed, as expected.
@@ -601,70 +503,76 @@
 
 @item @code{'skip}
 The test was skipped.
-
 @end table
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-kind [runner]
 
-Returns one of the above result codes from the most recent tests.Returns@code{#f}if no tests have been run yet.If we've started on a new test, but don't have a result yet,then the result kind is@code{'xfail}if the test is expected to fail,@code{'skip}if the test is supposed to be skipped,or@code{#f}otherwise.
+Returns one of the above result codes from the most recent tests.
+Returns @code{#f} if no tests have been run yet.  If we've started on a
+new test, but don't have a result yet, then the result kind is
+@code{'xfail} if the test is expected to fail, @code{'skip} if the test
+is supposed to be skipped, or @code{#f} otherwise.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-passed? [runner]
 
-True if the value of
-
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-result-kind [runner]
-
-is one of@code{'pass}or@code{'xpass}This is a convenient shorthand that might be usefulin a test suite to only run certain tests if the previous test passed.
+True if the value of @samp{(test-result-kind [@var{runner}])} is one of
+@code{'pass} or @code{'xpass}.  This is a convenient shorthand that
+might be useful in a test suite to only run certain tests if the
+previous test passed.
 @end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Test result properties
 
+A test runner also maintains a set of more detailed
+``result@tie{}properties'' associated with the current or most recent
+test.  (I.e. the properties of the most recent test are available as
+long as a new test hasn't started.)  Each property has a name (a symbol)
+and a value (any value).  Some properties are standard or set by the
+implementation; implementations can add more.
 
-A test runner also maintains a set of more detailed ``result properties''associated with the current or most recent test.  (I.e. the properties of the
-most recent test are available as long as a new test hasn't started.)
-Each property has a name (a symbol) and a value (any value).
-Some properties are standard or set by the implementation;
-implementations can add more.
-
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-ref runner pname [default]
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-ref runner ' pname [default]
-
-Returns the property value associated with thepnameproperty name.If there is no value associated with@code{'pname}returndefault,or@code{#f}ifdefaultisn't specified.
+Returns the property value associated with the @var{pname} property name
+(a symbol).  If there is no value associated with @var{pname} return
+@var{default}, or @code{#f} if @var{default} isn't specified.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Syntax} test-result-set! runner pname value
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-set! runner ' pname value
-
-Sets the property value associated with thepnameproperty name tovalueUsually implementation code should call this function, but it may beuseful for a custom test-runner to add extra properties.
+Sets the property value associated with the @var{pname} property name to
+@var{value}.  Usually implementation code should call this function, but
+it may be useful for a custom test-runner to add extra properties.
 @end deffn
 
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-remove runner pname
 
-@deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-remove runner ' pname
-
-Remove the property with the name@code{'pname}.
+Remove the property with the name @var{pname}.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-clear runner
 
-Remove all result properties.The implementation automatically calls@code{test-result-clear}at the start of a@code{test-assert}and similar procedures.
+Remove all result properties.  The implementation automatically calls
+@code{test-result-clear} at the start of a @code{test-assert} and
+similar procedures.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-result-alist runner
 
-Returns an association list of the current result properties.It is unspecified if the result shares state with the test-runner.The result should not be modified; on the other hand, the resultmay be implicitly modified by future@code{test-result-set!}or@code{test-result-remove}calls.However, a@code{test-result-clear}does not modify the returnedalist.  Thus you can``archive''result objects from previous runs.
+Returns an association list of the current result properties.  It is
+unspecified if the result shares state with the test-runner.  The result
+should not be modified; on the other hand, the result may be implicitly
+modified by future @code{test-result-set!} or @code{test-result-remove}
+calls.  However, a @code{test-result-clear} does not modify the returned
+alist.  Thus you can ``archive'' result objects from previous runs.
 @end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Standard result properties
 
-
 The set of available result properties is implementation-specific.
 However, it is suggested that the following might be provided:
 @table @asis
+
 @item @code{'result-kind}
 The result kind, as defined previously.
 This is the only mandatory result property.
@@ -691,121 +599,113 @@
 @item @code{'actual-error}
 The error value, if an error was signalled and it is known.
 The actual error value is implementation-defined.
-
 @end table
 
 @node SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
 @subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
 
-
-This section specifies how to write a test-runner.
-It can be ignored if you just want to write test-cases.
+This section specifies how to write a test-runner.  It can be ignored if
+you just want to write test-cases.
 
 @subsubheading Call-back functions
 
-
 These call-back functions are ``methods'' (in the object-oriented sense)
-of a test-runner. A method @code{test-runner-on-@var{event}}is called by the implementation when @var{event} happens.
+of a test-runner.  A method @code{test-runner-on-@var{event}} is called
+by the implementation when @var{event} happens.
 
-To define (set) the callback function for @var{event} use the following expression.
-(This is normally done when initializing a test-runner.)
+To define (set) the callback function for @var{event} use the following
+expression.  (This is normally done when initializing a test-runner.)
 
-@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event}! @var{runner}@var{event-function})}
+@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event}! @var{runner} @var{event-function})}
 
-An @var{event-function} takes a test-runner argument, and possibly other arguments, depending on the @var{event}.
+An @var{event-function} takes a test-runner argument, and possibly other
+arguments, depending on the @var{event}.
 
 To extract (get) the callback function for @var{event} do this:
-@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event}@var{runner})}
+@code{(test-runner-on-@var{event} @var{runner})}
 
-To extract call the callback function for @var{event} use the following expression.
-(This is normally done by the implementation core.)
-@code{((test-runner-on-@var{event}@var{runner}) @var{runner}@var{other-args} @dots{})}
+To extract call the callback function for @var{event} use the following
+expression.  (This is normally done by the implementation core.)
+@samp{((test-runner-on-@var{event} @var{runner}) @var{runner}
+@var{other-args} @dots{})}.
 
 The following call-back hooks are available.
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-begin runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-begin! runner on-test-begin-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-test-begin-function runner
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-test-begin-function runner
+The @var{on-test-begin-function} is called at the start of an
+individual testcase, before the test expression (and expected value) are
+evaluated.
 
-Theon-test-begin-functionis called at the start of anindividual testcase, before the test expression (and expected value) areevaluated.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-end runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-test-end! runner on-test-end-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-test-end-function runner
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-test-end-function runner
-
-Theon-test-end-functionis called at the end of anindividual testcase, when the result of the test is available.
+The @var{on-test-end-function} is called at the end of an
+individual testcase, when the result of the test is available.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-begin runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-begin! runner on-group-begin-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-group-begin-function runner suite-name count
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-group-begin-function runner suite-name count
-
-Theon-group-begin-functionis called by a@code{test-begin},including at the start of a@code{test-group}Thesuite-nameis a Scheme string,andcountis an integer or@code{#f}.
+The @var{on-group-begin-function} is called by a @code{test-begin},
+including at the start of a @code{test-group}.  The @var{suite-name} is
+a Scheme string, and @var{count} is an integer or @code{#f}.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-end runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-group-end! runner on-group-end-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-group-end-function runner
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-group-end-function runner
-
-Theon-group-end-functionis called by a@code{test-end},including at the end of a@code{test-group}.
+The @var{on-group-end-function} is called by a @code{test-end},
+including at the end of a @code{test-group}.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-count runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-count! runner on-bad-count-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-bad-count-function runner actual-count expected-count
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-bad-count-function runner actual-count expected-count
-
-Called from@code{test-end}(before theon-group-end-functionis called) if anexpected-countwas specified by the matching@code{test-begin}and theexpected-countdoes not matchtheactual-countof tests actually executed or skipped.
+Called from @code{test-end} (before the @var{on-group-end-function} is
+called) if an @var{expected-count} was specified by the matching
+@code{test-begin} and the @var{expected-count} does not match the
+@var{actual-count} of tests actually executed or skipped.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-end-name runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-bad-end-name! runner on-bad-end-name-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-bad-end-name-function runner begin-name end-name
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-bad-end-name-function runner begin-name end-name
-
-Called from@code{test-end}(before theon-group-end-functionis called) if asuite-namewas specified, and it did not that thename in the matching@code{test-begin}.
+Called from @code{test-end} (before the @var{on-group-end-function} is
+called) if a @var{suite-name} was specified, and it did not that the
+name in the matching @code{test-begin}.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-final runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-on-final! runner on-final-function
+@deffnx {Scheme Procedure} on-final-function runner
 
-@deffnx {Scheme Procedure}  on-final-function runner
-
-Theon-final-functiontakes one parameter (a test-runner)and typically displays a summary (count) of the tests.Theon-final-functionis called after called theon-group-end-functioncorrespondiong to the outermost@code{test-end}The default value is@code{test-on-final-simple}which writesto the standard output port the number of tests of the various kinds.
+The @var{on-final-function} takes one parameter (a test-runner) and
+typically displays a summary (count) of the tests.  The
+@var{on-final-function} is called after called the
+@var{on-group-end-function} correspondiong to the outermost
+@code{test-end}.  The default value is @code{test-on-final-simple} which
+writes to the standard output port the number of tests of the various
+kinds.
 @end deffn
 
-
-The default test-runner returned by@code{test-runner-simple}uses the following call-back functions:
+The default test-runner returned by @code{test-runner-simple} uses the
+following call-back functions:
 
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-on-test-begin-simple runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-test-end-simple runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-group-begin-simple runner suite-name count
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-group-end-simple runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-bad-count-simple runner actual-count expected-count
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-on-bad-end-name-simple runner begin-name end-name
 
 You can call those if you want to write your own test-runner.
@@ -813,76 +713,71 @@
 
 @subsubheading Test-runner components
 
-
-The following functions are for accessing the other components of a test-runner.
-They would normally only be used to write a new test-runner or
-a match-predicate.
-
+The following functions are for accessing the other components of a
+test-runner.  They would normally only be used to write a new
+test-runner or a match-predicate.
 
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-pass-count runner
 
 Returns the number of tests that passed, and were expected to pass.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-fail-count runner
 
 Returns the number of tests that failed, but were expected to pass.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-xpass-count runner
 
 Returns the number of tests that passed, but were expected to fail.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-xfail-count runner
 
 Returns the number of tests that failed, and were expected to pass.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-skip-count runner
 
 Returns the number of tests or test groups that were skipped.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-test-name runner
 
-Returns the name of the current test or test group, as a string.During execution of@code{test-begin}this is the name of thetest group; during the execution of an actual test, this is the nameof the test-case.If no name was specified, the name is the empty string.
+Returns the name of the current test or test group, as a string.  During
+execution of @code{test-begin} this is the name of the test group;
+during the execution of an actual test, this is the name of the
+test-case.  If no name was specified, the name is the empty string.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-group-path runner
 
-A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group first.
+A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group
+first.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-group-stack runner
 
-A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group last.(This is more efficient than@code{test-runner-group-path},since it doesn't require any copying.)
+A list of names of groups we're nested in, with the outermost group
+last.  (This is more efficient than @code{test-runner-group-path}, since
+it doesn't require any copying.)
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-aux-value runner
-
 @deffnx {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-aux-value! runner on-test
 
-Get or set the@code{aux-value}field of a test-runner.This field is not used by this API or the@code{test-runner-simple}test-runner, but may be used by custom test-runners to store extra state.
+Get or set the @code{aux-value} field of a test-runner.  This field is
+not used by this API or the @code{test-runner-simple} test-runner, but
+may be used by custom test-runners to store extra state.
 @end deffn
 
-
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} test-runner-reset runner
 
-Resets the state of therunnerto its initial state.
+Resets the state of the @var{runner} to its initial state.
 @end deffn
 
 @subsubheading Example
 
-
 This is an example of a simple custom test-runner.
 Loading this program before running a test-suite will install
 it as the default test runner.

Diff finished.  Wed Oct  2 15:59:15 2024

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 437 bytes --]


Looking at it more closely, it looks pretty much left alone.  It's only
been re-flowed and some typos or extraneous comments fixed (I had
submitted a bunch of typo fixes to upstream but it seems I had missed to
send some).

I'm also attaching the two versions (original snarfed vs submitted) for
reference.

[0] To snarf it on your own, you can use the tool I had shared here:
https://lists.gnu.org/r/guile-devel/2023-12/msg00067.html


[-- Attachment #4: original --]
[-- Type: application/texinfo, Size: 31167 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #5: documented --]
[-- Type: application/texinfo, Size: 29635 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #6: Type: text/plain, Size: 19 bytes --]


-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2187 bytes --]

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:

>>> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
>>
>>That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
>>things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
>>the current implementation in Guix does.
>
> I assume Guix->Guile.
>
> This modification of “left to the implementation” -> “what Guile does” is
> problematic, since it misleads readers into thinking this is the standard
> behaviour (it is after all named SRFI 64, not GRFI 64).
>
> “What Guile does” is also important information to have.
>
> To avoid this problem, when it documents a choice made by Guile, it should indicate in some way that this is Guile behaviour.
> (E.g.: “It is left to the implementation what happens when A. Guile chooses to
> B.”, or “It is left to the implementation what happens when A. Guile currently
> chooses to B, but may choose differently in future versions.”)
>
>>> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
>>> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior
>>There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
> implementation flavor ;-).  The one in Guile is pretty stock.
>
> Then Guile flavour is stock flavour, and stock flavour isn’t specification
> vanilla. From what I’ve heard, it’s not just sprinkles added to vanilla, it also
> has bugs (not the crunchy food kind).

Since Ludovic was so kind to merge my patch replacing the SRFI-64
implementation with a new version, to use your wording, Guile flavour is
no longer stock flavour, and should be pretty close to specification
vanilla.  I believe that should simplify documenting it.

I explicitly tried to stick as close as possible to the specification.
Those few implementation choices I made are described in the info manual
for my guile library.  For your convenience, HTML version can be found
here[0].  The next section (2.9.2) could possibly be of use as well.

0: https://files.wolfsden.cz/manuals/guile-wolfsden/guile-wolfsden-0.0.4.html#SRFI_002d64-implementation-choices

Have a nice day,
Tomas

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Ludovic Courtès]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

Hi Maxim,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
> adjustment.
>
> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.

Finally applied with the typographical changes below, for consistency
with (most of) the rest of the manual.

Thanks,
Ludo’.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 4835 bytes --]

diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
index 4bad8abbf..db54428ad 100644
--- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ get the relevant SRFI documents from the SRFI home page
 * SRFI-60::                     Integers as bits.
 * SRFI-61::                     A more general `cond' clause
 * SRFI-62::                     S-expression comments.
-* SRFI 64::                     A Scheme API for test suites.
+* SRFI-64::                     Writing test suites.
 * SRFI-67::                     Compare procedures
 * SRFI-69::                     Basic hash tables.
 * SRFI-71::                     Extended let-syntax for multiple values.
@@ -5295,22 +5295,23 @@ S-expression comments by default.
 
 @c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
 @c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
-@node SRFI 64
-@subsection SRFI 64: A Scheme API for test suites
-@cindex SRFI 64
+@node SRFI-64
+@subsection SRFI-64: A Scheme API for Test Suites
+@cindex SRFI-64, test suites
+@cindex test suites, SRFI-64
 
 @menu
-* SRFI 64 Abstract::
-* SRFI 64 Rationale::
-* SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites::
-* SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features::
-* SRFI 64 Test-runner::
-* SRFI 64 Test results::
-* SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner::
+* SRFI-64 Abstract::
+* SRFI-64 Rationale::
+* SRFI-64 Writing Basic Test Suites::
+* SRFI-64 Conditonal Test Suites and Other Advanced Features::
+* SRFI-64 Test Runner::
+* SRFI-64 Test Results::
+* SRFI-64 Writing a New Test Runner::
 @end menu
 
-@node SRFI 64 Abstract
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Abstract
+@node SRFI-64 Abstract
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Abstract
 
 This defines an API for writing @dfn{test suites}, to make it easy to
 portably test Scheme APIs, libraries, applications, and implementations.
@@ -5319,8 +5320,8 @@ context of a @dfn{test-runner}.  This specification also supports
 writing new test-runners, to allow customization of reporting and
 processing the result of running test suites.
 
-@node SRFI 64 Rationale
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Rationale
+@node SRFI-64 Rationale
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Rationale
 
 The Scheme community needs a standard for writing test suites.  Every
 SRFI or other library should come with a test suite.  Such a test suite
@@ -5359,8 +5360,8 @@ syntax is to allow specific tests to be skipped without evaluating
 sub-expressions, or for implementations to add features such as printing
 line numbers or catching exceptions.
 
-@node SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing basic test suites
+@node SRFI-64 Writing Basic Test Suites
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Writing Basic Test Suites
 
 Let's start with a simple example.  This is a complete self-contained
 test-suite.
@@ -5607,8 +5608,8 @@ For example:
 @end lisp
 @end deffn
 
-@node SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Conditonal test-suites and other advanced features
+@node SRFI-64 Conditonal Test Suites and Other Advanced Features
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Conditonal Test Suites and Other Advanced Features
 
 The following describes features for controlling which tests to execute,
 or specifying that some tests are @emph{expected} to fail.
@@ -5716,8 +5717,8 @@ not test execution.  For example:
 @end lisp
 @end deffn
 
-@node SRFI 64 Test-runner
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Test-runner
+@node SRFI-64 Test Runner
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Test Runner
 
 A @dfn{test-runner} is an object that runs a test-suite, and manages the
 state.  The test group path, and the sets skip and expected-fail
@@ -5787,14 +5788,14 @@ Executes each @var{decl-or-expr} in order in a context where the current
 test-runner is @var{runner}.
 @end deffn
 
-@node SRFI 64 Test results
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Test results
+@node SRFI-64 Test Results
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Test Results
 
 Running a test sets various status properties in the current test-runner.
 This can be examined by a custom test-runner,
 or (more rarely) in a test-suite.
 
-@subsubheading Result kind
+@subsubheading Result Kind
 
 Running a test may yield one of the following
 status symbols:
@@ -5912,13 +5913,13 @@ The error value, if an error was signalled and it is known.
 The actual error value is implementation-defined.
 @end table
 
-@node SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
-@subsubsection SRFI 64 Writing a new test-runner
+@node SRFI-64 Writing a New Test Runner
+@subsubsection SRFI-64 Writing a New Test Runner
 
 This section specifies how to write a test-runner.  It can be ignored if
 you just want to write test-cases.
 
-@subsubheading Call-back functions
+@subsubheading Call-back Functions
 
 These call-back functions are ``methods'' (in the object-oriented sense)
 of a test-runner.  A method @code{test-runner-on-@var{event}} is called

bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
>> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
>> adjustment.
>>
>> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.
>
> Finally applied with the typographical changes below, for consistency
> with (most of) the rest of the manual.

Yay!  Thank you.  I won't need to refer to the old HTML page anymore
:-).

-- 
Maxim