Chaos Eternal <eternalchaos@shlug.org> writes:

> Great job!
>
> I have a new idea using s-exps to define tests:
> simple way:
> (define-syntax define-examples
> (syntax-rules () ((_ e ...) (quote (e ...)))))
>
> then we can simply (read the-file)  then (match e ((define-examples e ...))
> (do-test e))

So you’d write something like the following?

(define (foo)
        (define-examples
            ((foo) 'foo))
        'foo)

It has the same limitations as I see for define-with-tests (see my other
answer), do you see advantages over the define-with-tests approach?

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