gribozavr added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
test/std/algorithms/alg.modifying.operations/alg.random.shuffle/random_shuffle.pass.cpp:35
@@ -30,1 +34,3 @@
}
+
+template <class Iter>
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> mclow.lists wrote:
> > This is not how I would rewrite this test.
> > I would write a routine that took two "iterators", and called
> > `random_shuffle`, and then checked for the desired results.
> >
> > Then call it with pointers. and RA iters, etc.
> > for example:
> >
> > template <Class Iter>
> > void test(Iter first, Iter last, Iter resFirst, Iter resLast);
> >
> > test(nullptr, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr);
> > int source[] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
> > int res [] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
> > const unsigned size = sizeof(source)/sizeof(source[0]);
> >
> > test(source, source + size, res, res+size);
> > test(random_access_iterator<int*>(source) .... );
> >
> >
> I actually thought about this, and it is hard to rewrite it like that for two
> reasons. First, `random_shuffle` mutates the elements, so one needs to
> restore the original sequence between calls to `test()` (otherwise it is not
> obvious that it was mutated). Second, this overload of `random_shuffle`
> takes randomness from global state, so one can't just specify one expected
> result in the test. That's why I first check for the initial shuffle
> exactly, and then only check that the output is a permutation of input.
>
Ping?
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14686
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
