From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2008-05-22 20:27:50
|
Daniel Tuser wrote: > Daniel Tuser wrote: >> Eric Bezault wrote: >>> Daniel Tuser wrote: >>>> In my opinion the code in catcall_problem.e contains no catcall. The >>>> following lines show the output of gec. I understand the problem of >>>> gec, but it will never happen. Is that a catcall according to the >>>> ECMA specification? >>> >>> The ECMA specification does not say much about CAT-calls. >>> In gec, there can be false alarms like these, but the >>> advantage is that when there is no error reported we know >>> for sure that there will be no CAT-calls at runtime. It >>> is usually possible to rewrite the code to avoid such >>> CAT-calls messages. At least it was possible to do so >>> for the code currently in the Gobo package. >>> >> My goal was to write test cases for DS_BILINEAR_TABLE and >> DS_BILINEAR_SET. All the binary search tree variants could have used >> them and maybe DS_HASH_[TABLE|SET] as well. But I had to stop because >> of those CAT-calls. Should I write separate test cases for all the >> variants or do you think it would be manageable to improve the >> CAT-call detection? >> > I had a look at the classes that are involved in detecting the > CAT-calls. From my point of view it is not worth the effort (at least > for me), so I will write separate test cases. OK. I tried to find ways to rewrite the code to avoid the CAT-call error messages, but could not find one yet (apart from duplicating the code for each container). -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |