On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Python <pyt...@bladeshadow.org> wrote:
> 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.
Where do you get that it's specifically a recursion benchmark though?
I can't find it anywhere in the explanatory text.