Scott Zhong wrote:
Narrow uses widen as input to test on with each different locales.
Then let's keep them both in 22.locale.ctype.narrow for now
and split it up later.
I
assume tolower does the same.
It doesn't. There are two loops, each testing one function
with no dependency on the other.
Martin
I think separating narrow.widen into two
separate test is not the most efficient method.
Yu (Scott) Zhong
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: rewrite of 22.locale.ctype test
Scott Zhong wrote:
As I had discuss with you Martin, rewrite the 22.locale.ctype test
into
smaller subtests with both char and wchar_t:
22.locale.ctype.is.ch
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is between test_is() and
test_is_ch() but the names are close enough that the tests should
probably be done in the same program. (The names of the tests are
chosen to match clauses in the standard wherever such clauses
exist.)
22.locale.ctype.toupper.tolower
22.locale.ctype.narrow.widen
22.locale.ctype.is
22.locale.ctype.scan
This looks reasonable, except that I would also split up toupper
and tolower, and narrow and widen into tests of their own. Each
test can exercise both char and wchar_t as we usually do (look
at the string tests for examples). There should be a command
line option to enable/disable each specialization.
If there's a lot of code that all the tests end up having in
common it should go in a common header (perhaps rw_ctype.h)
and source file (e.g., tests/src/ctype.cpp).
Or would you like to further separate char and wchar_t into two
separate
test? E.g. 22.locale.ctype.is.ch.char and
22.locale.ctype.is.ch.wchar.t.
This wouldn't be a bad idea if we were starting to write a new
test suite but since none of our other tests is structured this
way I wouldn't do it for ctype either.
Martin
