From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nala Ginrut Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] test-suite: Add tests for `for-rdelim-in-port`-related functions. Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 23:30:23 +0900 Message-ID: References: <43ad0b39-03cf-b648-3bc9-8c4a064519a8@disroot.org> <8e113f49-c1dc-313b-e65a-24a73c5b887a@disroot.org> <20241220101533.qxFY2D00e2kJuzj01xFZgG@baptiste.telenet-ops.be> <20241220125141.qzrg2D00G2kJuzj06zrg2X@albert.telenet-ops.be> <20241220135310.r0t92D0082kJuzj010t981@laurent.telenet-ops.be> <20241220144559.r1ly2D00i2kJuzj061lzzE@albert.telenet-ops.be> <20241220151837.r2Jc2D00o2kJuzj012JdDJ@laurent.telenet-ops.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007021170629b47da2" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36119"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "mikael@djurfeldt.com" , Adam Faiz , guile-devel , Ricardo Wurmus , Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> To: Maxime Devos Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 20 15:32:30 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tOe3I-0009Bn-DT for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:32:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOe1a-0004VU-8d; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:30:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOe1X-0004UV-2t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:30:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOe1V-0006cp-AR for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:30:38 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7fbbe0fb0b8so1345842a12.0 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:30:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1734705036; x=1735309836; darn=gnu.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=z1OvPOLqMwcJZjAmtS5f+akk4d5XpLVjsxeCe0vaECk=; b=JyaUtzpXuV6uXDqOLEkdLg7phOIZ1mpJwRuh7IEqAAH9F1bdvjHo7NGsxPWg25j1kp D7Ubt443+FBVm2dWQbNE/kVLTPaj7zeWpqu704FwTOphbsPyk9gySBOKV/6spq2e4PN8 aJ/Hfh9NdGubYd3w1c3Ygeo+XoXE6bgolxs8fVnLYryhNMO9taTBTXMjH6D2AclGM2mw T2AXEdyYzsstxhWs0c0iMdNAg9ABOaRa7drbD3mX4849qcDkJsn8aodWLFE1cIQQhwkf nhzBnzZRopv2Ovb6BpRwhQAiMU4WbF4x0NAYm0HiTD9oagpwWQaTRINdjYBIvGZ+sLXl g/KA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1734705036; x=1735309836; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=z1OvPOLqMwcJZjAmtS5f+akk4d5XpLVjsxeCe0vaECk=; b=IBLqaPYe9889n9gVxEIpdv9XsIPsrIvBNstg8zphbYx9hYU14SbfOXlVlkrXZJRruq W0YxXLuNSqjxXPcXP2orikxpnYl5jJSMKfLtHE8qOg8lUJPyR3YzdNF3CbN49yxaFpuF qzZFxJbvIg/9utI2epFYv3wTN0HQY7nHeoUVBe0AwRG5indaFmhOvURBZVKsy+sbXd7x UXSByUw6CKuKjRy1T1OeZFsYhMModFMeUyOC0ACsdK5pKpBVw/6VlOR6j33NCrWw7H5G wDJ+8HFzbMk/evoUyJqdk0mcvbaMH7C0FBKYK3/T8Y/vqh6J/qbn7k1Z+Kamit6bOUmV MQ5w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXMlgg7+3WI7lpg9G1HYQQYzEyon81w4q3AtGbIPCesxE3FJuNve1gYTAojYKTeBVmnHEyaDF7WvznY0A==@gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzhpECLzP3YOQaPGMU7U+dwIk0jab6IwIfyN8dKYK9moYXSKihR is8JK9sXbb9JCPbk546g/h5gN2n1rAv2VpzeXUbXIJTgAjoix/BTIT3HGK+aeru0Zcn5ySKhpkC YjkfIyrXFseZRRj3MymK/HyDSQ3LOV5KF X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvBkDr1cus5T4sIU6D6Ypat/CY7zmMk07i14oNFqnXIAW2lCiwGQvDyOzM317j FhY1CQ1q3AW3QQkKk1lI+Il8aw2PFA6pKcZQ2bg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHEsHXeWfiHQJjYNpq2XYdQCivFbAMDSQfVp23IuFVa/4A5AGbKPsIW2OCe81tx6a4OldmvE6tK+ivJzdOQlh8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:54cb:b0:2ee:96a5:721e with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2f452e1cacamr6058533a91.12.1734705035614; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:30:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20241220151837.r2Jc2D00o2kJuzj012JdDJ@laurent.telenet-ops.be> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c; envelope-from=nalaginrut@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-x52c.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:22849 Archived-At: --0000000000007021170629b47da2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As I said, I didn't against any of your opinions. But I have my freedom to comment on what I think important. So I made my proposal accordingly to the specific issue as you pointed out. This may not be accepted by you, but that's your freedom to share your mind further. And I unnecessarily need to respond to it unless I think it's worth. In case you thought people may misunderstand you, I also care if the image in your mind is not what showed in your mind. I keep my comments before anyone show the related code as you described. But let me emphasize it, this doesn't mean anyone is forced to reimplement the code. At least I accept the current implementation. Don't forget, these patches included your efforts either, and I respect that part too, in the name of the code. Personally, I would like to comment on the existing code rather than mind. This thread is not only you and me. Many others are reading it. You don't need to persuade me. You just claim your mind directly, and wait for folks agree it, or at least part of it. Best regards. On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 23:18 Maxime Devos wrote: > >Here are the "back to the track" reply for folks in this thread. > > > > > >So the situation is more clear now. The newline in various OS need to > respectively tested. And my idea is to check OS via (uname) in test cases= . > > >Now that it's in tests, I think we don't have to talk much about the > efficiency issue for this specific case. > > > > No. See what I wrote previously about the subject, and note that most of > it is independent of whether it=E2=80=99s for testing or not. As you prev= iously > said you intentionally did not read (parts of) the messages, I=E2=80=99m = not going > to repeat it for you. > > > > In addition: why not simply _*read*_ the implementation of (ice-9 rdelim) > to see what platform-detecting mechanism it uses (if any) and reuse that, > instead of reinventing the wheel? Sounds like it would save effort and > time, which you seem particularly interested in, and claimed effort/time = is > one of your own arguments against generalisation. > > > > Also, it doesn=E2=80=99t need to be tested, since read-line is not what= =E2=80=99s being > added or modified here. (Tests for that may be good, but that=E2=80=99s o= ff-topic, > which you are rather against, and is your most coherent argument against > generalisation.) Rather, either the used newline in the test needs to be > adjusted per-platform, or the documentation of read-line needs to be > adjusted to that \n is always a newline. > > > > Also, it=E2=80=99s also not a proper =E2=80=9Cback to the track=E2=80=9D = reply, since it ignores > the =E2=80=98generalisation=E2=80=99 component of the track. > > > > Regards, > > Maxime Devos > --0000000000007021170629b47da2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As I said, I didn't against any of your opinions. But I = have my freedom to comment on what I think important.

So I made my proposal accordingly to the specific issue as y= ou pointed out. This may not be accepted by you, but that's your freedo= m to share your mind further. And I unnecessarily need to respond to it unl= ess I think it's worth. In case you thought people may misunderstand yo= u, I also care if the image in your mind is not what showed in your mind. I= keep my comments before anyone show the related code as you described.

But let me emphasize it, this doesn't mean anyone is for= ced to reimplement the code. At least I accept the current implementation. = Don't forget, these patches included your efforts either, and I respect= that part too, in the name of the code. Personally, I would like to commen= t on the existing code rather than mind.

This thread is not only you and me. Many others are reading = it. You don't need to persuade me. You just claim your mind directly, a= nd wait for folks agree it, or at least part of it.

Best regards.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 23:18 Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:

>Here are the &qu= ot;back to the track" reply for folks in this thread.

>= =C2=A0

>So the situation is more clear now. The newline in various OS need = to respectively tested. And my idea is to check OS via (uname) in test case= s.

>Now that it's in tests, I think we don't have to talk mu= ch about the efficiency issue for this specific case.<= /p>

=C2=A0<= /u>

No. See what I wr= ote previously about the subject, and note that most of it is independent o= f whether it=E2=80=99s for testing or not. As you previously said you inten= tionally did not read (parts of) the messages, I=E2=80=99m not going to rep= eat it for you.

=C2=A0

In addition: why not simply _read_ the implementation of = (ice-9 rdelim) to see what platform-detecting mechanism it uses (if any) an= d reuse that, instead of reinventing the wheel? Sounds like it would save e= ffort and time, which you seem particularly interested in, and claimed effo= rt/time is one of your own arguments against generalisation.<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

Also, it doesn=E2=80= =99t need to be tested, since read-line is not what=E2=80=99s being added o= r modified here. (Tests for that may be good, but that=E2=80=99s off-topic,= which you are rather against, and is your most coherent argument against g= eneralisation.) Rather, either the used newline in the test needs to be adj= usted per-platform, or the documentation of read-line needs to be adjusted = to that \n is always a newline.

=C2=A0

Also, it=E2=80=99s also not a proper =E2=80=9Cback= to the track=E2=80=9D reply, since it ignores the =E2=80=98generalisation= =E2=80=99 component of the track.

=C2=A0

Regards,

Maxime Devos

--0000000000007021170629b47da2--