Should all the ranges have that sort of static assert to make sure they satisfy the intended set of attributes?
On 6/22/2010 8:03 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > I think just issuing an assert(isForwardRange!(typeof(repeat(1))) should > suffice. > > Andrei > > On 06/22/2010 09:58 AM, David Simcha wrote: >> Realistically, how would you recommend testing something like this? I >> checked to make sure that there was something instantiating each version >> of the structs to make sure that they compile (i.e. no silly syntax >> errors), and as for the logical correctness, it seemed like the code was >> so trivial that it would be silly to write an explicit test for it. >> Furthermore, the precedent in the rest of Phobos seems to be that such >> trivial code does not require testing. >> >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Brad Roberts <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 6/22/2010 5:31 AM, dsource.org <http://dsource.org> wrote: >> > phobos commit, revision 1678 >> > >> > >> > user: dsimcha >> > >> > msg: >> > Bug 4362: std.range.repeat and cycle do not have a .save() method >> > >> > http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/changeset/1678 >> >> Don't forget to add unit tests. :) >> _______________________________________________ >> phobos mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> phobos mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
