On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, ahmad khalifa wrote: > so u both think that what i did was wrong ? > enlighten me...
Depends on how do you define "wrong". What you did is quite good as a _prototype_, to be replaced by something better later. Unfortunately I cannot access your code right now, as there is no link from the arabeyes PuTTY page, nor from the sf.net page! But lemme give an example: your code has no optimizations and it looks like an O(N^2) implementation. You may say that the lines are short in PuTTY, but IIRC you are keeping the minibidi separate from PuTTY. As another example, I'm not sure you fixed it or not, but you used to only keep bidi types for Arabic block. Or one really hard to find out technical one: A PDF should pop the *matching* LRE/RLE/LRO/RLO code, not the one on top of the stack. Now go find what does it mean ;). [Hint: the reference impl. does this too, as well as FriBidi] And you say your implementation is quite compliant to the spec, but I see you can only say it because you have done absolutely no systematic tests. Lemme tell you how we tested FriBidi for compliance: compiled both FriBidi and the reference impl. Then wrote a few small scripts (they are in FriBidi CVS too) to generate absolutely random strings of length 64kb, and feed to both implementations, and compare the output. This way could find any of my implementation errors in a matter of seconds, giving a huge counter example, that I used to trim down and find the bug. Then I let the test process to run for 24 hours on my celeron machine, and only when it couldn't find any offending string, I claimed that. Ofcourse we have some static tests too, that you have seen. > ak. --behdad behdad.org _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
