0.7.12.34

[sbcl.git] / tests / type.pure.lisp

diff --git a/tests/type.pure.lisp b/tests/type.pure.lisp
index a770835..8b4d624 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/type.pure.lisp
+++ b/tests/type.pure.lisp
@@ -33,7 +33,8 @@
 ;;; SINGLE-FLOAT DOUBLE-FLOAT RATIONAL)".  We ideally want all of the
 ;;; defined-by-ANSI types to unparse as themselves or at least
 ;;; something similar (e.g. CHARACTER can unparse to BASE-CHAR, since
-;;; the types are equivalent in current SBCL).
+;;; the types are equivalent in current SBCL, and EXTENDED-CHAR can
+;;; unparse to NIL, since there are no EXTENDED-CHARs currently).
 (let ((standard-types '(;; from table 4-2 in section 4.2.3 in the
                        ;; CLHS.
                        arithmetic-error
@@ -117,17 +118,7 @@
                        error
                        readtable
                        two-way-stream
-                       ;; This one's hard: (AND BASE-CHAR (NOT BASE-CHAR))
-                       ;;
-                       ;; This is because it looks like
-                       ;;   (AND CHARACTER (NOT BASE-CHAR))
-                       ;; but CHARACTER is equivalent to
-                       ;; BASE-CHAR. So if we fix intersection of
-                       ;; obviously disjoint types and then do (the
-                       ;; extended-char foo), we'll get back FOO is
-                       ;; not a NIL. -- CSR, 2002-09-16.
-                       ;;
-                       ;; extended-char
+                       extended-char
                        real
                        type-error                 
                        file-error
@@ -181,3 +172,12 @@
 #+nil
 (assert (and (subtypep 'function '(function))
              (subtypep '(function) 'function)))
+
+;;; Absent any exciting generalizations of |R, the type RATIONAL is
+;;; partitioned by RATIO and INTEGER.  Ensure that the type system
+;;; knows about this.  [ the type system is permitted to return NIL,
+;;; NIL for these, so if future maintenance breaks these tests that
+;;; way, that's fine.  What the SUBTYPEP calls are _not_ allowed to
+;;; return is NIL, T, because that's completely wrong. ]
+(assert (subtypep '(or integer ratio) 'rational))
+(assert (subtypep 'rational '(or integer ratio)))