[Scutigena-code] Re: new lists tests

[antirez <an...@in...>]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:21:35AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> 
> So, everyone seems to complain about the lists tests, and I don't
> blame them.
> 
> Maybe what we need are two tests, one where linked list
> implementations will win, and another where vectors underneath will
> win?  So that would be 'list' and 'vector'...

That's a first try for a list test. Here the winners should
be languages implementing lists as real linked stuctures.

# Note: the K combinator may speed-up this a lot
# but as this code is for 'reference' better to take
# it this way for now.

set N $argv

# Populate the L1 list with a random function
set X 41
set L1 {}
for {set i 0} {$i < $N} {incr i} {
    set X [expr ($i+($X*17))%$N]
    lappend L1 $X
}

# Create a new list L2 inserting every element of L1 so that the L2 list
# remains ordered.
set L2 {}
set len 0
foreach e $L1 {
    for {set i 0} {$i < $len} {incr i} {
	if {[lindex $L2 $i] >= $e} break
    }
    set L2 [linsert $L2 $i $e]
    incr len
}

# For every element in L2, remove the first element with the same
# value from L1 (so the L1 list become every step shorter).
foreach e $L2 {
    set idx [lsearch -exact $L1 $e]
    set L1 [lreplace $L1 $idx $idx]
}

puts [llength $L1]

The correct output is always 0

-- 
               Salvatore Sanfilippo <antirez at invece dot org>
"However, there is a tension between making the language simpler and making the
organization of a system manifest. As the variety of costructs decreases, so
does the variety of linguistic clues of a system's structure." (Ungar and Smith)