Extend minArgs and maxArgs methods to accept up to 15 arguments without much of a performance hit i…

Extend minArgs and maxArgs methods to accept up to 15 arguments without much of a performance hit if #arguments < 4

BUG=
R=sigmund@google.com

Committed: cdc8420684a6b21d4ed0ffa41cea16605ed0521d

[jacobr, 2015-01-14 19:58:43]

obviously the tests could be rewritten to verify the # or arguments using mirros
but this is good enough.

[sigmund, 2015-01-14 20:19:30]

true - I agree this is good enough :)

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/lib/src/common.dart
File lib/src/common.dart (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/lib/src/common.dart#newcode101
lib/src/common.dart:101: if (f is! _Func2) {
nice optimization :)

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart
File test/args_test.dart (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode175
test/args_test.dart:175: t6(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) {}
Thanks for adding all the new test cases!

Just to maintain the coverage we had before, it might be worth adding a couple
more with 17 parameters (or change SUPPORTED_ARGS to 14). In particular, we
could add:

 m55(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14,
     p15, [o16, o17]) {}
 m56(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14,
     p15, p16, [o17]) {}
 m57(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14,
     p15, p16, p17) {}

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode191
test/args_test.dart:191: // >5 arguments, required args only.
minor nit, maybe add a new line above

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode192
test/args_test.dart:192: t22(o1, o2, o3, o4, o5, o6) {}
BTW-  if changing this back is too annoying feel free to ignore: the convention
I had was to use pX for required arguments and oX for optional ones, but we can
leave it as it is..

[jacobr, 2015-01-14 21:11:04]

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/lib/src/common.dart
File lib/src/common.dart (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/lib/src/common.dart#newcode101
lib/src/common.dart:101: if (f is! _Func2) {
On 2015/01/14 20:19:30, sigmund wrote:
> nice optimization :)

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart
File test/args_test.dart (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode175
test/args_test.dart:175: t6(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) {}
On 2015/01/14 20:19:30, sigmund wrote:
> Thanks for adding all the new test cases!
> 
> Just to maintain the coverage we had before, it might be worth adding a couple
> more with 17 parameters (or change SUPPORTED_ARGS to 14). In particular, we
> could add:
> 
>  m55(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14,
>      p15, [o16, o17]) {}
>  m56(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14,
>      p15, p16, [o17]) {}
>  m57(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p14,
>      p15, p16, p17) {}
> 
> 

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode191
test/args_test.dart:191: // >5 arguments, required args only.
On 2015/01/14 20:19:30, sigmund wrote:
> minor nit, maybe add a new line above

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode192
test/args_test.dart:192: t22(o1, o2, o3, o4, o5, o6) {}
On 2015/01/14 20:19:30, sigmund wrote:
> BTW-  if changing this back is too annoying feel free to ignore: the
convention
> I had was to use pX for required arguments and oX for optional ones, but we
can
> leave it as it is..

Not annoying at all. I fixed everything with the regex replace
p(\d+), o(\d+) --> p$0, p$1 
:)

[sigmund, 2015-01-15 02:57:53]

lgtm

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart
File test/args_test.dart (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/192130045/diff/1/test/args_test.dart#newcode192
test/args_test.dart:192: t22(o1, o2, o3, o4, o5, o6) {}
On 2015/01/14 21:11:04, jacobr wrote:
> On 2015/01/14 20:19:30, sigmund wrote:
> > BTW-  if changing this back is too annoying feel free to ignore: the
> convention
> > I had was to use pX for required arguments and oX for optional ones, but we
> can
> > leave it as it is..
> 
> Not annoying at all. I fixed everything with the regex replace
> p(\d+), o(\d+) --> p$0, p$1 
> :)

nice :)

[jacobr, 2015-01-15 17:58:59]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) manually as
cdc8420684a6b21d4ed0ffa41cea16605ed0521d (presubmit successful).