Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
QCheck2.Gen: enforce naming consistency #223
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
QCheck2.Gen: enforce naming consistency #223
Changes from all commits
9b8370a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this compile without the dreaded "this-optional-argument-is-not-so-option" warning/error?
(I realize it is curried, so that
option_ratio
will expect a latergen
argument)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did not have the warning but I will double check. But I think the
gen
argument should prevent the warning yes.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest renaming
pint_raw
tonat_pos_raw
while we are at it.I know it isn't visible from the outside, however using the naming principles internally should make reading the implementation easier for ourselves and others going forward.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For consistency, should this really be called
nat_bound
? 😬There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think suspect this renaming introduces a bug: the else branch handles
n
bigger than 30-bit,which will then need the old
pint
(now:nat_origin
) to stitch together 3 calls.Using plain
nat
outputs max 10.000 though. A statistics test should reveal the change in distribution!This would be a good opportunity to add it 😀