[Maxima-commits] [git] Maxima CAS branch, master, updated. branch-5_30-base-57-gbd4678e

>>>>> "Rupert" == Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick at gmail.com> writes:

    Rupert> Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> writes:
    >> I guess this is lost in the mists of time, but rtest16 was supposed to be a
    >> grab bag of all the bugs that were fixed to make it easy to find bugs.  But
    >> this was never really documented, except, perhaps in passing on the list.
    >> 
    >> I guess rtest16 has outlived its usefulness, and tests should be placed in
    >> the appropriate file, when possible.  Especially if the bug number stays
    >> with the test.  Of course, some of the other test files are a kind of
    >> random collection too. :-)
    >> 
    >> Ray

    Rupert> Ah, I assumed that 16 was just 15+1 and no-one had incremented to
    Rupert> rtest17 yet! What I've been doing (or trying to do) was adding a new
    Rupert> test-case to the bottom of rtest16 when fixing a bug. Unfortunately,
    Rupert> rtest16 is now pretty enormous (it's one of the files that takes the
    Rupert> longest in a testsuite run)

    Rupert> So I think it probably makes sense to split it up a bit. My logic was
    Rupert> that anything calling limit() was probably exercising similar code, so I
    Rupert> could lump it together in one file as a first approximation to the
    Rupert> "ideal" partition into files. I was careful to move the comments with
    Rupert> bug numbers over (of course!)

    Rupert> But I'm not claiming to know the ideal layout! If you have strong
    Rupert> feelings, I'll happily revert this change.

No, I have no objections.  I was just putting a bit of history into
how rtest16 came to be.

Ray