stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r412249 - in /incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests: include/21.strings.h src/21.strings.cpp
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:40:57 GMT
Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> Ok, I see. I think we may leave the design as is at this time. 
> But there is a problem with reverse iterators. It looks like we should
> provide special resulting sequence for them.
> What do you think about this?

Yeah, I realize the reverse iterators don't quite fit in and need
some sort of special treatment. The problem is that we currently
have no way to specify a set of test cases to exercise just this
and no other iterator categories.

I think we have at least the following three options for how to
deal with reverse iterators:

1. Do nothing (i.e., avoid using them for testing).

2. Change the StringTest struct to let us designate sets of test
cases intended only for reverse iterators.

3. Change the driver to create a new StringTestCase object from the
hardcoded one with the expected result in the reverse_iterator case
(i.e., before invoking the test function with a StringFunc::iter_id_
of ReverseIter).

I'm not too crazy about option (2) since it feels like a hack (do
you have any arguments for going with it?) so for me it really comes
down to either (1) or (3). I guess we can leave it for now, unless
you have a burning desire to implement it, and come back to it if
and when we're done with other more important things.


PS It seems that implementing it in the driver shouldn't be too
difficult. Reversing the substring of the expected result string
that corresponds to range argument of the modifying function
should do it, don't you think?

View raw message