[pypy-svn] r17487 - pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/test

[tismer at codespeak.net]

Author: tismer
Date: Mon Sep 12 03:22:55 2005
New Revision: 17487

Modified:
   pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/test/test_rrange.py
Log:
this check-in is just to show a funny observation.

When a variable is conditionally assigned two different ranges,
the ranges are kept, unless the steps are different.
Well, after all this is not surprizing.
But I thing the action taken is not pleasant:
the range is turned into a list in this case!

I guess what we want is either special-casing the respective blocks,
or at least map this to the variable step case, if this is possible.

Please let me know what you think.


Modified: pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/test/test_rrange.py
==============================================================================
--- pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/test/test_rrange.py	(original)
+++ pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/test/test_rrange.py	Mon Sep 12 03:22:55 2005
@@ -104,3 +104,44 @@
     assert res == failingfn_var(step)
     step = 0
     assert check_failed(failingfn_var, [step])
+
+def test_range_iter():
+    def fn(start, stop, step):
+        res = 0
+        if step == 0:
+            if stop >= start:
+                r = range(start, stop, 1)
+            else:
+                r = range(start, stop, -1)
+        else:
+            r = range(start, stop, step)
+        for i in r:
+            res = res * 51 + i
+        return res
+    res = interpret(fn, [2, 7, 1])#, view=True)
+    # XXX not finished, stunned
+
+# XXX the above test works, but it always turns the range into a list!!!
+#
+# here another test that show that this even happens in a simple case.
+# I think this is an annotator problem
+
+def test_range_funny():
+    # this is just an example.
+    # making start/stop different is ok
+    def fn(start, stop):
+        if stop >= start:
+            r = range(start, stop, 1)
+        else:
+            r = range(start, stop-1, 1)
+        return r[-2]
+    # making step different turns the range into a list!
+    # I think, we should instead either specialize the blocks,
+    # or morph the whole thing into the variable step case???
+    def fn(start, stop):
+        if stop >= start:
+            r = range(start, stop, 1)
+        else:
+            r = range(start, stop, -1)
+        return r[-2]
+    res = interpret(fn, [2, 7])#, view=True)