Hello,

The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals.

Noah

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen <kanru@kanru.info> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If you mean give guile a '.js' file have it interpret that with
>> ecmascript, then I think it's not possible right now, although I
>> suspect that such a feature could be added easily.
>
> Right, I've cooked a little script to interpret .js files directly.
>
> I ran the sputniktests[1] from google using the attached guile-es-parse
> script, which only tests the parser.
>
>  python tools/sputnik.py --full-summary --command ./guile-es-parse|tee log
>
> The result is impressive (full log attached):
>
>  === Summary ===
>   - Ran 5246 tests
>   - Passed 4410 tests (84.1%)
>   - Failed 836 tests (15.9%)
>
> Where the failed tests have
>
>   - 245 unicode errors (unicode literal is not supported)
>   - 393 rbrace errors  (see below)
>   - 39 Math.LN2 errors (see below)
>   - 159 remain to sort out
>
> The rbrace errors are from
>
>   function test() {}
>   // Syntax error: unexpected token :  in form rbrace
>
>   function foo() { this.bar = function() { return 0; } };
>   // Syntax error: unexpected token :  in form rbrace
>
> I also tried to compile the parsed tests, but halted because too many
> errors like
>
>   Object.prototype.toString = function () {return "something";};
>   // No applicable method for #<<generic> pput (6)> in call (pput
>   // #<unbound> toString #<procedure 1e1c438 ()>)
>
> I thought the tests won't run correctly without this.
>
> [1]: https://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/
>
> Cheers,
> Kanru
> --
> A badly written book is only a blunder. A bad translation of a good
> book is a crime.
>                -- Gilbert Highet
>