Unit tests

I couldn't help myself making one more issue)
Here are just an empty several sections. Can I use this structure for my unit-tests?

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-02 13:11:09]

I couldn't help myself making one more issue)
Here are just an empty several sections. Can I use this structure for my
unit-tests?

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-02 15:27:33]

Please don't include .suo file in changelists

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3
File mystl/Vector.h (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3#newcode21
mystl/Vector.h:21: size_ = capacity;
I think this chunk is from the previous changelist you've sent me. Be careful
not to commit too much when commiting previous CL.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3#newcode44
mystl/Vector.h:44: din_array_[size_++] = value;
I think this chunk is from the previous changelist you've sent me. Be careful
not to commit too much when commiting previous CL.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3#newcode64
mystl/Vector.h:64: };
You don't need a fixture class if you don't do any code in it. Just replace
TEST_F with TEST in the .cpp file - and you don't need "class VectorTest"
anymore

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2
File mystl_test/Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2#newcode9
mystl_test/Main.cpp:9: //simillar operations for different types
why don't you just write these tests?

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-04 10:11:42]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3
File mystl/Vector.h (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3#newcode64
mystl/Vector.h:64: };
On 2009/12/02 15:27:33, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> You don't need a fixture class if you don't do any code in it. Just replace
> TEST_F with TEST in the .cpp file - and you don't need "class VectorTest"
> anymore

I wanted to write setups for testing in TEST_F. Because I thought it would be
better to separate code into two different parts. Here I could write setups and
it test fixtures in main I could write testing code. So dhouldn't I do this?

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2
File mystl_test/Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2#newcode9
mystl_test/Main.cpp:9: //simillar operations for different types
On 2009/12/02 15:27:33, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> why don't you just write these tests?
I wasn't sure If such structure of tests is good) So I decieded to write just
names of tets and then make them better if the structure is bad. And after that
I wanted to write tests. I tried to separate work for small steps by this. Maybe
these steps are too small..)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2#newcode13
mystl_test/Main.cpp:13: // (size_ >= capacity_). In this section will be
Sorry! Here it should have been "(size_ == capacity_)"

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-04 15:51:40]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3
File mystl/Vector.h (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3#newcode64
mystl/Vector.h:64: };
In general, it is good to write common SetUp/TearDown code for a number of test.
However, I think you don't really need to right now since your SetUp() method is
currently empty

On 2009/12/04 10:11:42, sleeepycat wrote:
> On 2009/12/02 15:27:33, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> > You don't need a fixture class if you don't do any code in it. Just replace
> > TEST_F with TEST in the .cpp file - and you don't need "class VectorTest"
> > anymore
> 
> I wanted to write setups for testing in TEST_F. Because I thought it would be
> better to separate code into two different parts. Here I could write setups
and
> it test fixtures in main I could write testing code. So dhouldn't I do this?

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2
File mystl_test/Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/2#newcode9
mystl_test/Main.cpp:9: //simillar operations for different types
You'd better take a look at some real tests e.g.
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/
-- any file with _unittests.cc at the end
or http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/GoogleTestSamples

And just write the tests. I don't think these two test you've prototyped would
be more than 5 lines long

On 2009/12/04 10:11:42, sleeepycat wrote:
> On 2009/12/02 15:27:33, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> > why don't you just write these tests?
> I wasn't sure If such structure of tests is good) So I decieded to write just
> names of tets and then make them better if the structure is bad. And after
that
> I wanted to write tests. I tried to separate work for small steps by this.
Maybe
> these steps are too small..)
>

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-07 13:27:54]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3
File mystl/Vector.h (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/1/3#newcode64
mystl/Vector.h:64: };
ok

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-07 13:37:21]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode6
Main.cpp:6: TEST(Constructor, DefaultValuesTest) {
Sorry! I didn't want them to be so great, but.. They are((

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-07 15:55:50]

General comment:
You're trying to test the implementation details, not the contract.
For example, http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/stl/vector/push_back/ doesn't
require the capacity to be doubled for each reallocation, right?

Please try writing the tests so that if you add these lines at the top of
Main.cpp
  #define Vector std::vector
  #define PushBack push_back
, your tests MUST pass.
I think some of your proposed tests will fail.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode6
Main.cpp:6: TEST(Constructor, DefaultValuesTest) {
They are not great, I think you've meant "large"?
On 2009/12/07 13:37:22, sleeepycat wrote:
> Sorry! I didn't want them to be so great, but.. They are((

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode10
Main.cpp:10: //default_val or not
this particular test is pretty self-descriptive, you may delete the lines with
comments.
Btw, your comments are violating Google Code Style recommendations.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode13
Main.cpp:13: Vector<int> int_vector(6, int_default_value);
rename int_vector to "v"

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode26
Main.cpp:26: int_vector4(size, int_default_value);
please,
* rename int_vectorX to "vX"
* one definition per line
* write all the definition with the same indentation

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode28
Main.cpp:28: EXPECT_EQ(DEFAULT_CAPACITY, int_vector.capacity());
hey, I don't see capacity() in Vector.h

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode32
Main.cpp:32: EXPECT_EQ(size, int_vector4.capacity());
Please chech that std::vector passes this test.
I think it may not.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode46
Main.cpp:46: Vector<int> int_vector;
rename int_vector to "v"

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode57
Main.cpp:57: EXPECT_EQ(DEFAULT_CAPACITY*2, int_vector.capacity());
I think it's better to write a less strict test.
For example, I don't think you can get some sort of DEFAULT_CAPACITY equivalent
for std::vector, right? If you can't - you can't write this test for std::vector
which is bad.

I think it's better to use like EXPECT_LE(old_capacity, int_vector.capacity())
inside the for() loop and remove the code after the loop.

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-08 06:18:52]

>doesn't require the capacity to be doubled for each reallocation, right?
Why not? I can't get you.

"Adds a new element at the end of the vector, after its current last
element. The content of this new element is initialized to a copy of *x*.

This effectively increases the vector
size<http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::size>by one, which causes a
reallocation of the internal allocated storage if the
vector size <http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::size> was equal to the vector
capacity <http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::capacity> before the call.
Reallocations invalidate all previously obtained iterators, references and
pointers."

This is contract, isn't it? And here they write that "... causes a
reallocation of the internal allocated storage if the vector
size<http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::size>was equal to the vector
capacity <http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::capacity> before the call"? Isn't
this the thing that I should test?

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-08 06:26:05]

Or do you mean that I should test just the fact that reallallocation been
occured? Should  do it not through capacity? If yes, how can I do this?

2009/12/8 sleeepycat <sleeepycat@gmail.com>

>  >doesn't require the capacity to be doubled for each reallocation, right?
> Why not? I can't get you.
>
> "Adds a new element at the end of the vector, after its current last
> element. The content of this new element is initialized to a copy of *x*.
>
> This effectively increases the vector
size<http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::size>by one, which causes a reallocation
of the internal allocated storage if the
> vector size <http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::size> was equal to the
> vector capacity <http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::capacity> before the
> call. Reallocations invalidate all previously obtained iterators, references
> and pointers."
>
> This is contract, isn't it? And here they write that "... causes a
> reallocation of the internal allocated storage if the vector
size<http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::size>was equal to the vector
> capacity <http://www.cplusplus.com/vector::capacity> before the call"?
> Isn't this the thing that I should test?
>

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-08 07:36:55]

I have several questions before continuing working on code

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode6
Main.cpp:6: TEST(Constructor, DefaultValuesTest) {
Yes. I meant "large". "Great" was my sense of humor.
In russian I would say something like this as well)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode26
Main.cpp:26: int_vector4(size, int_default_value);
Timur, but how will I make difference between int and other types? Should I make
"int_vX" or somethig like this?

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode28
Main.cpp:28: EXPECT_EQ(DEFAULT_CAPACITY, int_vector.capacity());
On 2009/12/07 15:55:50, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:

hm.. But here is capacity() =)) I took a look at Vector.h in the patch 2, and
there is capacity there)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode32
Main.cpp:32: EXPECT_EQ(size, int_vector4.capacity());
it works

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode46
Main.cpp:46: Vector<int> int_vector;
Here is the same question: what should I do with this int?..

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-08 15:09:00]

> This is contract, isn't it?
> And here they write that "... causes a reallocation of the internal
> allocated storage if the vector size was equal to the vector capacity
> before the call"? 
What I mean is that you test the exact implementation - your vector's capacity
is doubled on each reallocation, but it is not enforced in a contract.
Different implementations may behave differently, failing your tests.
This may lead to same problems as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object#Limitations

To test that reallocation occurs you can simply test
EXPECT_LE(v.size(), v.capacity());
after each push_back, right?

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode26
Main.cpp:26: int_vector4(size, int_default_value);
Do you need to explicitly specify the types when declaring class field
variables? I don't think so.

Speaking of these unit-tests, they are tiny (less than 20 lines of code each),
so why bother inventing long names? Of course, for bigger tests it's better to
have descriptive names.

On 2009/12/08 07:36:56, sleeepycat wrote:
> Timur, but how will I make difference between int and other types? Should I
make
> "int_vX" or somethig like this?

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode28
Main.cpp:28: EXPECT_EQ(DEFAULT_CAPACITY, int_vector.capacity());
On 2009/12/08 07:36:56, sleeepycat wrote:
> On 2009/12/07 15:55:50, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> 
> hm.. But here is capacity() =)) I took a look at Vector.h in the patch 2, and
> there is capacity there)

Done.

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-09 10:02:24]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode26
Main.cpp:26: int_vector4(size, int_default_value);
">Do you need to explicitly specify the types when declaring class field
variables?"
I thought I was need it. I wanted to create several vectors of different types
in one test and after creation add elements into them. Elements' types should
correspond types of vectors.

I read about typed tests from
http://code.google.com/p/googletest/source/browse/trunk/samples/sample6_unitt...
I thought of usage of typed tests in my code. I understood how can I create
vectors of defferent types automatically. But I couldn't understand what should
I do with types of adding elements. So I decided just to write several vectors
of different types with several adding elements of corresponding types. As it
seems to me, in this case I need part "int_" in the names of vectors and adding
elements

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode57
Main.cpp:57: EXPECT_EQ(DEFAULT_CAPACITY*2, int_vector.capacity());
ok. I'll try to make tests better obey the contracts. And I think, yes, there
should be a loop

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-09 16:13:55]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode26
Main.cpp:26: int_vector4(size, int_default_value);
If you test different types, you may use int_ prefix for int-vector, float_ for
float-vector etc.
But in this particular test you use only int_ vectors, don't you?

On 2009/12/09 10:02:24, sleeepycat wrote:
> ">Do you need to explicitly specify the types when declaring class field
> variables?"
> I thought I was need it. I wanted to create several vectors of different types
> in one test and after creation add elements into them. Elements' types should
> correspond types of vectors.
> 
> I read about typed tests from
>
http://code.google.com/p/googletest/source/browse/trunk/samples/sample6_unitt...
> I thought of usage of typed tests in my code. I understood how can I create
> vectors of defferent types automatically. But I couldn't understand what
should
> I do with types of adding elements. So I decided just to write several vectors
> of different types with several adding elements of corresponding types. As it
> seems to me, in this case I need part "int_" in the names of vectors and
adding
> elements

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode57
Main.cpp:57: EXPECT_EQ(DEFAULT_CAPACITY*2, int_vector.capacity());
There is a for loop above?

On 2009/12/09 10:02:24, sleeepycat wrote:
> ok. I'll try to make tests better obey the contracts. And I think, yes, there
> should be a loop

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-12 15:53:56]

Looks like you had a newer patchset uploaded.
I've missed it, sorry. (next time please explicitly ask for re-review of a new
patchset)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode6
Main.cpp:6: TEST(Constructor, DefaultValuesTest) {
TEST(VectorTest, ConstructorWithDefaultValuesTest)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode8
Main.cpp:8: Vector<int> int_vector(6, int_default_value);
please, just "v"

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode14
Main.cpp:14: TEST(PushBack, EmptyVector) {
TEST(VectorTest, PushBackTest)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode16
Main.cpp:16: Vector<int> int_vector;
please, just "v"

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode27
Main.cpp:27: TEST(PushBack, SeveralElementsVector) {
what's the point of this test?

Both int_vectors are processed in the same way as PushBack.EmptyVector test.

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-14 06:17:53]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4001/2006#newcode26
Main.cpp:26: int_vector4(size, int_default_value);
I want to write all the types of tests in THIS test. I have only int test here
just because all the other types I wanted to write as the next step. In my plan
there should be not only int

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode6
Main.cpp:6: TEST(Constructor, DefaultValuesTest) {
On 2009/12/12 15:53:56, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode8
Main.cpp:8: //Vector(int capacity, const T &default_val)
ok. I did it

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode14
Main.cpp:14: for(int i = 0; i < int_vector.size(); i++)
Do you mean I should merge these two tests? I did

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode16
Main.cpp:16: }
ok

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-14 06:29:36]

Here is new patchset)

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-14 12:34:36]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode14
Main.cpp:14: TEST(PushBack, EmptyVector) {
Actually, no
On 2009/12/14 06:17:54, sleeepycat wrote:
> Do you mean I should merge these two tests? I did

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode5
Main.cpp:5: 
why did you create a few empty lines?

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode12
Main.cpp:12: 
empty line

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode14
Main.cpp:14: TEST(PushBack, EmptyVector) {
The three different tests (which you've merged into one) have almost exactly the
same code (arrrgh) and differ only in the vector constructor parameters.
I think you should completely avoid duplicating code THREE times inside one test
and better extract the duplicated code into one separate function.
Then simply call it three times with different arguments.
Btw, please add checks that the size of vector after N times push_back is equal
to "old_size + N"

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode40
Main.cpp:40: EXPECT_EQ(int_add_value, int_vector2[i]);
empty line

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-14 13:33:24]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/4006/2012#newcode27
Main.cpp:27: TEST(PushBack, SeveralElementsVector) {
I made two different tests because vector wich is created as empty and vector
wich is created as vector with several elements behave different

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-15 06:46:34]

Here is response.
Look through new patchset, please

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode5
Main.cpp:5: 
I thought it would be more readble)
ok. I changed all doublee lines to one line (in the next patchset)

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode12
Main.cpp:12: 
On 2009/12/14 12:34:36, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode14
Main.cpp:14: TEST(VectorTest, PushBackTest) {
Oh, yes!.. You are perfectly right.
I did.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/7004/7005#newcode40
Main.cpp:40: 
On 2009/12/14 12:34:36, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:

Done.

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-15 12:27:02]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode5
Main.cpp:5: TEST(VectorTest, ConstructorWithDefaultValues) {
ConstructorWithDefaultValuesTest

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode13
Main.cpp:13: void PushBackTestCycle(Vector<T> &v, T &add_value, int start_num,
int end_num) {
hint: in this function you don't need the absolute values of start_num and
end_num, you only need their difference

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode32
Main.cpp:32: PushBackTestCycle(v2, add_value, start_size, number_of_elem);
re-arrange the lines and use one line per definition:
(Definitions first)
int start_size = 7,
    default_value = 7;
Vector<int> v,
            v1(...),
            v2(...);

int add_value = 5,
    num_of_elements = 30; // I think it's a better name
PushBackTestCycle(...);
PushBackTestCycle(...);
PushBackTestCycle(...);

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-16 09:47:58]

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode5
Main.cpp:5: TEST(VectorTest, ConstructorWithDefaultValues) {
On 2009/12/15 12:27:02, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode13
Main.cpp:13: void PushBackTestCycle(Vector<T> &v, T &add_value, int start_num,
int end_num) {
Do you mean I can find my start_num from v.size()? I've done that

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode32
Main.cpp:32: PushBackTestCycle(v2, add_value, start_size, number_of_elem);
Ok. But I don't understand, why there are int defenitions the first, then
Vector<int>, then int again. In the next patch merged both int defenitions

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2009-12-16 14:34:07]

LGTM.
If all the tests pass - commit.

There are a couple of subtle problems in the test code, but I think it's better
to find&fix them later than trying to do everything perfect right away.

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004
File Main.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode13
Main.cpp:13: void PushBackTestCycle(Vector<T> &v, T &add_value, int start_num,
int end_num) {
Not exactly, but you did it fine
On 2009/12/16 09:47:58, sleeepycat wrote:
> Do you mean I can find my start_num from v.size()? I've done that

http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode32
Main.cpp:32: PushBackTestCycle(v2, add_value, start_size, number_of_elem);
Your variant is OK
On 2009/12/16 09:47:58, sleeepycat wrote:
> Ok. But I don't understand, why there are int defenitions the first, then
> Vector<int>, then int again. In the next patch merged both int defenitions

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-21 06:20:34]

I did)

2009/12/16 <timurrrr@gmail.com>

> LGTM.
> If all the tests pass - commit.
>
> There are a couple of subtle problems in the test code, but I think it's
> better to find&fix them later than trying to do everything perfect right
> away.
>
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004
> File Main.cpp (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode13
> Main.cpp:13: void PushBackTestCycle(Vector<T> &v, T &add_value, int
> start_num, int end_num) {
> Not exactly, but you did it fine
>
> On 2009/12/16 09:47:58, sleeepycat wrote:
>
>> Do you mean I can find my start_num from v.size()? I've done that
>>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode32
> Main.cpp:32: PushBackTestCycle(v2, add_value, start_size,
> number_of_elem);
> Your variant is OK
>
> On 2009/12/16 09:47:58, sleeepycat wrote:
>
>> Ok. But I don't understand, why there are int defenitions the first,
>>
> then
>
>> Vector<int>, then int again. In the next patch merged both int
>>
> defenitions
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081
>

[sleeepycat, 2009-12-21 06:20:49]

Everythig passes)

2009/12/21 sleeepycat <sleeepycat@gmail.com>

> I did)
>
> 2009/12/16 <timurrrr@gmail.com>
>
> LGTM.
>> If all the tests pass - commit.
>>
>> There are a couple of subtle problems in the test code, but I think it's
>> better to find&fix them later than trying to do everything perfect right
>> away.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004
>> File Main.cpp (right):
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode13
>> Main.cpp:13: void PushBackTestCycle(Vector<T> &v, T &add_value, int
>> start_num, int end_num) {
>> Not exactly, but you did it fine
>>
>> On 2009/12/16 09:47:58, sleeepycat wrote:
>>
>>> Do you mean I can find my start_num from v.size()? I've done that
>>>
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081/diff/9002/8004#newcode32
>> Main.cpp:32: PushBackTestCycle(v2, add_value, start_size,
>> number_of_elem);
>> Your variant is OK
>>
>> On 2009/12/16 09:47:58, sleeepycat wrote:
>>
>>> Ok. But I don't understand, why there are int defenitions the first,
>>>
>> then
>>
>>> Vector<int>, then int again. In the next patch merged both int
>>>
>> defenitions
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/163081
>>
>
>