QCheck2.Gen: enforce naming consistency for type int #243
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
First PR of attempting to tackle #223 in multiple smaller mrs. It should facilitate reviews.
Notice that I move code around so
int t
generators are close to each other both in the implementation and interface.Naturals
Generators becomes:
Deprecated natural generators are:
Classic generators
Generators becomes:
Deprecated generators are:
I then ran
On each deprecated generator to see if all occurrences (expected the deprecation cycle) were removed.
TODO
int_pos
has?origin
butint_neg
does not, makes it weird.Question
Now that we have this smaller PR, we can question the existence of
nat
and/orint_pos
@jmid you said in the last PR
I think we could change
nat*
to become kind of an alias toint_pos*
. That'd mean thatint_pos
would be removed and underlying generators for naturals will become uniform over OCaml positive integers rather than "non-uniform and at most 10.000"