1. stack.e changes
Chris,
I tried to email you but I must not have a correct email address for you. But
some of the unit tests for stack are now failing after the latest commit. Before
committing, can you please
cd tests
exwc all.ex
and make sure the tests still pass? the dup() and pop() for FIFO fail now.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
2. Re: stack.e changes
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I tried to email you but I must not have a correct email address for you. But
> some of the unit tests for stack are now failing after the latest commit.
> Before
> committing, can you please
>
> cd tests
> exwc all.ex
>
> and make sure the tests still pass? the dup() and pop() for FIFO fail now.
>
> --
> Jeremy Cowgar
> <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
Use oedoc hat free doubt fr as email, but I don't look at it in real time.
Problem is that dup() is not documented.
I assumed that dup() means: push the value pushed last. And in that case, the
stack should be {30,30,20,10}, not {30,20,10,10}.
If it was meant to duplicate the top of stack rather, then the test is right and
my change is not. The pop() test fails because of the discrepancy for dup().
CChris
3. Re: stack.e changes
CChris wrote:
>
>
> Problem is that dup() is not documented.
> I assumed that dup() means: push the value pushed last. And in that case, the
> stack should be {30,30,20,10}, not {30,20,10,10}.
> If it was meant to duplicate the top of stack rather, then the test is right
> and my change is not. The pop() test fails because of the discrepancy for
> dup().
>
dup() should duplicate top(). dup() could be as simple as:
dup() = push(top()) I would keep the length() check in dup() so a meaningful
error message can result in it's misuse.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
