> > Or made the algorithm not depending on the order. Either way is fine, > but it has to be robust.
In my case the use of the set instead of a list helped to identify the problem, so in this sense it was a good thing. This is why randomizing testing order is also good. So I understand your point, Aaron, but in this case it was only because the order varied and was non-deterministic that it showed that it wasn't robust. There was a hidden logical error than only came out when the order was changed. This is part of the reason that I have an interest in functions like subset: if you have a function that tests args, you can feed it the sorts of arguments of interest (rather than the function itself) and see that it is doing the right thing regardless of order. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
