This patch fixes a lot of the "unexpected token: rbrace" errors that had been messing up the Sputnik test results. The issue was that Guile didn't allow functions with empty bodies. Noah On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Noah Lavine wrote: > Hello, > > The attached patch should add support for ECMAScript unicode literals. > > Noah > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kan-Ru Chen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Noah Lavine 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 #< pput (6)> in call (pput >> // # toString #) >> >> 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 >> >