From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DFA77EF0D for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:18:25 +0100 (CET) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:d1eXMByG4E2RPOnXCy+O+j09IxM/srCxBDY+r6Qd0eIUIJqq85mqBkHD//Il1AaPBtWErakawLKP+4nbGkU+or+5+EgYd5JNUxJXwe43pCcHRPC/NEvgMfTxZDY7FskRHHVs/nW8LFQHUJ2mPw6anHS+4HYoFwnlMkItf6KuStGU1Jr8j7n60qaQSjsLrQL1Wal1IhSyoFeZnegtqqwmFJwMzADUqGBDYeVcyDAgD1uSmxHh+pX4p8Y7oGx48sgs/M9YUKj8Y79wDfkBVGxnYCgJ45jHvAfCQTyqy10gaMRexhZNDg7Z9hzSWpb3rzu/uPB03iKXe8rsQuZndy6l6vJCTgPvjm8tPjU58Wef3sV2kLhcphiorBx+xabbZYiUMLx1eaaLLoBSfnZIQssED38JOYi7dYZaSrNZZes= Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=antronbachin@gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=antronbachin@gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail-ig0-f179.google.com Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of antronbachin@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.213.179; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="antronbachin@gmail.com"; x-sender="antronbachin@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of antronbachin@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.179 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.213.179; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="antronbachin@gmail.com"; x-sender="antronbachin@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-ig0-f179.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.213.179; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="antronbachin@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ig0-f179.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AbAQANo71WmLPVVdFehAxtiFumXYpjgWchhWwCgTc6EgEBAQEBAQEBEAEBAQEBBgsLCSEugi2CFQEBAwESLgEbHQEDAQsGBQs7IxEBBQEcBi4Hh2IBAwoIDqQSgTE+MY0dgleFIQoZJw1RhA4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPAQUKBIdvgkqEMIMtgQ8FjhuIXIVQiAWCKIZuDoVSRIw+L4ENJwKCLh6BcEsBiB4BAQE X-IPAS-Result: A0AbAQANo71WmLPVVdFehAxtiFumXYpjgWchhWwCgTc6EgEBAQEBAQEBEAEBAQEBBgsLCSEugi2CFQEBAwESLgEbHQEDAQsGBQs7IxEBBQEcBi4Hh2IBAwoIDqQSgTE+MY0dgleFIQoZJw1RhA4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPAQUKBIdvgkqEMIMtgQ8FjhuIXIVQiAWCKIZuDoVSRIw+L4ENJwKCLh6BcEsBiB4BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,435,1449529200"; d="scan'208";a="202786493" Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 12 Feb 2016 10:18:24 +0100 Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hb3so5972937igb.0 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 01:18:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=AsHNyKd926dR2xQsejLYIWqlOicSoOHahvoXL30Wh1w=; b=TAdJyN+8CAXh4gqX/fPuD0ezbXc3qQNOLI8KY4TG/FOe/yr77FdYAHDoMiJX8Ma46b 0c3byf4O5gmlSyL9K2bkuWSNLEDgbgkjVNEmiR5yiPiRiL4VyDqOb3BYlniZ80IOa/lM Jl/Do07tG2mVvI56E7bmmJjRQhyLao4CF1oDju4GgCs2K29TwFd9QZq93SadUT0Zlw5N 3+valBwzfXfaQI9xe50bGHaLJTZqnGNTkbDHmBGOARd+a/V5WcwwZRwJ2rJNPG29tAs+ M2hjExuDXdC396tQpnSzMxZPDB8NEysRZvTLzqj69unpV80utMFFir/iKjNo9JhSjNWM nwkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=AsHNyKd926dR2xQsejLYIWqlOicSoOHahvoXL30Wh1w=; b=Z6KWXoAVxnJbUpzDW/ILkWLHaOu8i57V79FUgBtKBYyT4KX1l42sfSjbPHNi6VdwhA eieg03rYJE+DxvCL8uPUioKeoa4fMYyJDDHPhyevoVyboiyRQgG4lFJN2RkLteZwq/c3 zqiH8fUUikQCR7qBKAaBvUibx5cMRYFuUVA3E9LP3IRei6ZWVi81mTve+NwLLkSE+0lU uz94KLzxKAuAJxOBex2BJrTia9refiNNBZxJHTHl/+BPln9jKgN30ZJNEdD7Tu3dmA/i ui3EvBTDSiqWxbmF3yqG2x5vuE40A9f/K2wO6vn7zeTX6AcRN2tWuSte1NIEI8bZxEW8 ZV1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORy13q06o7kUwRMB6YsyzazHUMGY3sh/PkK47fsFX+7NEbtB7++VJpsdUWFP4Qjjw== X-Received: by 10.50.43.170 with SMTP id x10mr1784714igl.50.1455268703386; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 01:18:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (c-73-9-77-177.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [73.9.77.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p8sm5894136ioe.38.2016.02.12.01.18.22 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 01:18:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Anton Bachin In-Reply-To: <56BD7F65.1050909@linux-france.org> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:18:22 -0600 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 476961502.349518-140ae4f3f32f42626623cd63743a7b2b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1D895000-5F5D-48D3-A667-6FC122C4CB84@gmail.com> References: <1FE0ECD4-BBD6-48DA-95BD-BB240E07484C@yahoo.com> <56BB694D.1030306@linux-france.org> <5F24126F-5082-42B8-9FCF-87F924892CA5@yahoo.com> <56BD7F65.1050909@linux-france.org> To: =?windows-1252?Q?David_MENTR=C9?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5BANN=5D_Bisect=5Fppx_1=2E0=2E0?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_=96_Modernized_code_coverage_for_OCaml?= > Well I would have marked the "f x". My reasoning is simple, if f is > executed, it should be green. And f is more important than try regarding > coverage. It certainly would be more readable, and we will keep this in mind. However, I think we would delay addressing this for now, because there are even more =93bad=94 examples from the point of view of readability, that ha= ve higher priority. For example, the first line of every case is typically not marked (the pattern is marked instead): http://rleonid.github.io/bisect_ppx/coverage/file0026.html#L41 So if the same try-expression was on the first line of a case, neither the try nor the subexpression would end up marked by the current procedure. While it would be nice to have a solution to this, short of marking every subexpression, we are not sure what to do. There is some tradeoff between marking every subexpression and trying to mark only =93relevant" branching points, and so far we have tried to stick to the latter option. Perhaps it would be good to hear arguments for and against both options. > Two remarks: >=20 > * If expressions are marked (which I suspected), then the HTML output > should color at expression granularity level and not line granularity > level. Therefore you would have only green or red and never orange[1] > (which would be simpler and clearer); The output is colored at the expression granularity level. The letters with the bolder background are the real locations of each mark. Lines are then colored according to whether they have visited marks, unvisited marks, neither, or both. What I think you are suggesting is that each line be subdivided into subexpression spans, but I don=92t think that will work =96 because an unvi= sited expression might have a visited subexpression, for instance. > * You could do some post-processing to look for such keywords as > =93then=94, =93else=94, and =93end=94 and color them accordingly. It migh= t be more a > hack than a clean approach, but I think it would make the output more > readable. Leonid briefly looked at doing this yesterday, and we will probably look at it again, but we would expect it to be a bit of a kludge so we would probably hesitate to implement it. It would make things more intuitively readable, however, so we are keeping it in mind. Regards, Anton