Yes.
Andrei
On 06/22/2010 12:24 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
