I'm not following your prosaic description here. Please post whatever parts of the code you'd write differently.

What LanX is saying is : since you are now sorting the output of twosum as a part of your "is_deeply" compare, you no longer need to duplicate tests , and you can revert to your original set of tests that have the results in increasing-index order.

                "If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence."

Hi Ken

> Please post whatever parts of the code you'd write differently.

my @tests = (
    [[2,7,11,15], 9, [0,1]],
    [[3,2,4], 6, [1,2]],
    [[3,3], 6, [0,1]],
);

for my $test (@tests) {
    is_deeply
        sort_arrayref(two_sum($test->[INPUT], $test->[TARGET])),
        $test->[EXPECTED];
}

sub sort_arrayref {
    my ($aref) = @_;

    return [ sort { $a <=> $b } @$aref ];
}
[download]

hope it's clearer now :)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

In "Re: LeetCode Problem #1 - Two Sum - Improve and/or discuss.", you wrote:

"... you have to also allow the reverse order in your tests."

In "Re^2: LeetCode Problem #1 - Two Sum - Improve and/or discuss.", I replied to that saying that I agreed and that the spec had indeed said "any order". I changed @tests to include "any order".

In "Re^3: LeetCode Problem #1 - Two Sum - Improve and/or discuss.", you replied to that:

"not sure why you are duplicating the tests ... (?)"

There were no duplicates. I added (different) tests such that the result could be in "any order".

In "Re^5: LeetCode Problem #1 - Two Sum - Improve and/or discuss.", to which I'm now replying, you've removed the tests that allowed the results to be in "any order". You've modified is_deeply such that any additional tests added to @tests must have the results in ascending order for the is_deeply test to be successful. I do not agree that this is any sort of improvement; in fact, I'd consider it to be a bad move.

By the way, I don't see any difference between my &sort_arrayref and yours. I've looked closely at both; do let me know if I've missed something.

— Ken