Red, <div><br></div><div>No objections whatsoever. I like Fiasco, FiveAM and RT, but feel free to suggest something else. swank/tests/*.lisp seems like the obvious spot, even though we have a couple of Scheme implementations of swank. The swank/tests system can live inside swank.asd perhaps. </div><div><br></div><div>What do you think? Feel free to suggest an alternative layout or test framework. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers, </div><div>Luís <br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 04:57 Red Daly &lt;<a href="mailto:reddaly@gmail.com">reddaly@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I&#39;m modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete &quot;c:m-v-b&quot; to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.<div><br></div><div>Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?</div><div><br></div><div>If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)</div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>