On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 17:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 18:15 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > So I can't see how the old code really sorted like it's supposed > > > to. We're probably lacking a test case that checks the result of > > > the coding is really what we produced. But this seems more likely > > > to actually produce the expected output. > > > > Do you have some example of a SET OF structure that is correctly sorted? > > We can then have a test that decodes it and re-encodes it to verify the > > new code. > > Test_tree loads one that is not correctly sorted, encodes it as > DER at which points it gets sorted and then decodes it again. As > far as I can see that decoded version is correctly sorted.
I see, but that as you say it works with both the current version and yours. Are there cases where your version would work and the current wouldn't? regards, Nikos
