Better value number controlling methods #3678
Conversation
ldm0
changed the title
ldm0
force-pushed
the
ldm_values
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f475d9f
to
cc20c8d
Compare
| @@ -38,9 +38,11 @@ OPTIONS: | |||
| --multvalsmo <one> <two> Tests multiple values, and mult occs | |||
| -o, --option <opt>... tests options | |||
| -O, --option3 <option3> specific vals [possible values: fast, slow] | |||
| --optvaleq[=<optval>] Tests optional value, require = sign | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a bugfix, since min_value(0) + number_of_values(1) makes --optvaleq without value incorrect, which means the [] should be removed.
|
Could you please add more context to the commit / PR of what your solution is for those issues, how it solves the linked issues, and any concerns or trade offs you had in designing it? If this is solving addition problems, please open issues for them so we make sure we get all the relevant context for it. If it seems like we'll be doing more discussion on the problem itself and what a solution should look like (and not just the implementation), please post those comments in the associated issues. We ask that issues focus on problem/solution discussions and PRs on implementation discussions. |
ldm0
force-pushed
the
ldm_values
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c81ae1e
to
2faa8cd
Compare
|
@epage Comments added: #2688 (comment) |
use range_num_vals(_total) test pass Add tests
fixes #2688
fixes #3542