On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 05:56:25AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> No, not satisfied. Everything you've said would still be satisfied if
> all versions of the benchmark used the same non-recursive algorithm.
> There's nothing here that says it's testing recursion, just that (for
> consistency) it's testing the same algorithm. There is no reason to
> specifically test *recursion*, unless that actually aligns with what
> you're doing.
It seems abundantly clear to me that testing recursion is the point of
writing a benchmark implementing recursion (and very little of
anything else). Again, you can decide for yourself the suitability of
the benchmark, but I don't think you can really claim it doesn't
effectively test what it means to.