r5rs pitfall test

r5rs pitfall test

[Dale P. Smith]

I saw this on comp.lang.scheme and thought I'd try it out:

http://sisc.sourceforge.net/r5rspitresults.html

Guile fails tests 1.1 and 2.1

The results (after commenting out 2.1) are:

Failure: 1.1, expected '0', got '1'.
Passed: 1.2
Passed: 1.3
Passed: 3.1
Passed: 3.2
Passed: 4.1
Passed: 4.2
Passed: 5.1
Passed: 5.2
Passed: 5.3
Passed: 6.1
Passed: 7.1
Passed: 7.2
Passed: 7.3
Passed: 7.4
Map is not call/cc safe, but probably tail recursive and efficient.

Including 2.1:

Failure: 1.1, expected '0', got '1'.
Passed: 1.2
Passed: 1.3
<unnamed port>: In expression (0 (syntmp-c-42 1)):
<unnamed port>: Wrong type to apply: (0 (syntmp-c-42 1))

The code for 1.1 is:
;;Credits to Al Petrofsky
(should-be 1.1 0
 (let ((cont #f))
   (letrec ((x (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) (set! cont c) 0)))
            (y (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) (set! cont c) 0))))
     (if cont
         (let ((c cont))
           (set! cont #f)
           (set! x 1)
           (set! y 1)
           (c 0))
         (+ x y)))))

The code for 2.1 is:
;;Credits to ???, (and a wink to Matthias Blume)
(should-be 2.1 1
 (call/cc (lambda (c) (0 (c 1)))))

For 2.1, it appears that apply is checking to see if 0 is a procedure
before it evaluates the arguments.

I don't understand why 1.1 returns 1.

These errors should probably be fixed and added to the regression tests.

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
Senior Systems Consultant,      | Treasurer,
Altus Technologies Corporation  | Cleveland Linux Users Group
dsmith@altustech.com            | http://cleveland.lug.net
440-746-9000 x239               |


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: r5rs pitfall test

[Marius Vollmer]

[You'd never think you get an answer this late, right? ;-]

"Dale P. Smith" <dsmith@altustech.com> writes:

> I saw this on comp.lang.scheme and thought I'd try it out:
> 
> http://sisc.sourceforge.net/r5rspitresults.html

Thanks!  I added these tests to the HEAD test suite.

> Guile fails tests 1.1 and 2.1

I didn't fix these bugs right away since I didn't understand 1.1 right
away and 2.1 is relatively hard to fix, given the internal structure
of our evaluator.  I'd say 2.1 (at least) isn't very important to fix,
tho.

If anyone feels motivated... :-)

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel