Re^2: A reproducible shuffle? ("stable shuffle")

2. Yes, it's alot easier to assess correct code behaviour if you know the input... Of course it is important to have several, including patological, sequences of nonrandom for a good suite of tests. :o)

Comment on Re^2: A reproducible shuffle? ("stable shuffle")

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A reproducible shuffle? ("stable shuffle") by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Feb 05, 2008 at 04:24 UTC
Sure. But, you store your pathological sequences for testing, often in something like DBM::Deep. This didn't sound like a testing problem. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]