| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Consensus seems to be that (a) string_view is, in effect, already a reference,
(b) it's small enough to make pass-by-value reasonable and (c) the optimizer
can reason about values way better than it can about references.
|
|
LF, and trim trailing whitespaces as needed
|
|
The header file documents that no llrand function should ever return a value
equal to the passed extent, so the one test in llrand_test.cpp that checked
less than or equal to the high end of the range was anomalous.
But changing that to an exclusive range means that we no longer need separate
exclusive range and inclusive range functions. Replace
ensure_in_range_using(), ensure_in_exc_range() and ensure_in_inc_range() with
a grand unified (simplified) ensure_in_range() function.
|
|
It's frustrating and unactionable to have a failing test report merely that
the random value was greater than the specified high end. Okay, so what was
the value? If it's supposed to be less than the high end, did it happen to be
equal? Or was it garbage? We can't reproduce the failure by rerunning!
The new ensure_in_exc_range(), ensure_in_inc_range() mechanism is somewhat
complex because exactly one test allows equality with the high end of the
expected range, where the rest mandate that the function return less than the
high end. If that's a bug in the test -- if every llrand function is supposed
to return less than the high end -- then we could simplify the test logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
