OK, so this is a regression in test-program.script, and I traced it to...
lisp-invocation giving the -I flag to clisp, which causes clisp to output extra prompts. Apparently that flag should only be used when invoked inside an emacs M-x shell.
I fixed this in lisp-invocation 1.0.4, and updated the ext/ dependency in master and minimakefile.
But yes, clisp would be better if it were released again.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Always strive to be the best yourself you can be. For you can't possibly be anyone else, anyway.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
Do we have a way of indicating that we expect a test to fail?
There's a string in the output that talks about "Unexpected test failures in..." but I am not sure if there's actually any notion of expected vs. unexpected test failure. IIRC in the past when I knew a test would fail I just used reader macros to make sure it wouldn't run.
This is actually not as good as having the test run but not cause a failure.
I ask because I get test failures in clisp on run-program, because somehow clisp lets the common-lisp prompt leak into the output of running a program. So I get something like
("[4]> hello, world") instead of ("hello, world")
IIRC this is a known clisp problem, and may even be fixed in the clisp source. But there hasn't been a clisp release for almost five years now, and I don't intend to build it from source.
With no releases since 2010, IMO clisp is only "living dead," and possibly simply "dead."