Fix comment style and better annotation on expected failure

diff --git a/tests/numbers.lisp b/tests/numbers.lisp
index f58473f..2d44def 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/numbers.lisp
+++ b/tests/numbers.lisp
@@ -1,45 +1,45 @@
 ;;;; Tests for numeric functions
 
-; ABS
+;;; ABS
 (test (= (abs  3) 3))
 (test (= (abs -3) 3))
 
-; MAX
+;;; MAX
 (test (= (max 1)     1))
 (test (= (max 1 2 3) 3))
 (test (= (max 3 2 1) 3))
 
-; MIN
+;;; MIN
 (test (= (min 1)     1))
 (test (= (min 1 2 3) 1))
 (test (= (min 3 2 1) 1))
 
-; EVENP
+;;; EVENP
 (test      (evenp  2))
 (test      (evenp -2))
 (test (not (evenp  1)))
 (test      (evenp  0))
 
-; ODDP
+;;; ODDP
 (test      (oddp  3))
 (test      (oddp -3))
 (test (not (oddp  2)))
 (test (not (oddp  0)))
 
-; +, -, *, /
-; The builtin definition of these is variadic, but the function definition
-; should be as well. So, test it using MAPCAR
+;;; +, -, *, /
+;;; The builtin definition of these is variadic, but the function definition
+;;; should be as well. So, test it using MAPCAR
 (let* ((a '(1 2))
        (b a)
        (c a))
   (test (equal (mapcar #'+ a b c) '( 3  6)))
   (test (equal (mapcar #'- a b c) '(-1 -2)))
   (test (equal (mapcar #'* a b c) '( 1  8)))
-  ; This test will need to be changed when rationals are introduced
+  ;; This test will need to be changed when rationals are introduced
   (test (equal (mapcar #'/ a b c) '( 1  0.5))))
 
-; >, >=, =, <, <=, /=
-; As above, we need to make sure the function is called, not the builtin
+;;; >, >=, =, <, <=, /=
+;;; As above, we need to make sure the function is called, not the builtin
 (let ((a '(1 3 1 2 1))
       (b '(2 2 2 2 1))
       (c '(3 1 2 1 1)))
@@ -50,13 +50,18 @@
   (test (equal (mapcar #'<= a b c) '(  t nil   t nil   t)))
   (test (equal (mapcar #'/= a b c) '(  t   t nil nil nil))))
 
-; INTEGERP
+;;; INTEGERP
 (test (integerp  1))
 (test (integerp -1))
 (test (integerp  0))
 
-; FLOATP
-(expected-failure (floatp    1.0)) ; The reader reads 1.0 as an int 
+;;; FLOATP
+
+;; It is a known bug. Javascript does not distinguish between floats
+;; and integers, and we represent both numbers in the same way. So 1
+;; == 1.0 and integer and float types are not disjoint.
+(expected-failure (floatp 1.0)) 
+
 (test             (floatp    1.1))
 (test             (floatp    pi))
 (test             (floatp (- pi)))