<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Phil Dawes' Stuff - Latest Comments in A simple scheme unittest DSL</title><link>http://phildawesstuff.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 06:49:41 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: A simple scheme unittest DSL</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/#comment-2753592</link><description>Hi Nat,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Actually using continuations was the original plan but it turned out to be more tricky than I'd expected because of syntax-rules macro hygiene.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The problem is that the inner assert macro can't just use the symbol for the continuation because it gets masked, so IIRC the outer macro needs to traverse the code re-writing the assert calls to include the continuation as an argument - it was doing that where I came a bit unstuck and switched to the exception hack.&lt;br&gt;Hmmm... maybe I should revisit this.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Dawes</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 06:49:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A simple scheme unittest DSL</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2007/05/23/a-simple-scheme-unittest-dsl/#comment-2753591</link><description>Wouldn't a really Scheme-y macro rewrite the tests to use call/cc to pass the continuation into the test function and rewrite the asserts to call the continuation to jump out of the test when the assert failed?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nat</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 15:03:23 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>