Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 5, 2018. It is now read-only.

Improve random() #269

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Oct 12, 2016
Merged

Improve random() #269

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
db5f1e0
Improve random() (fixes processing-js/processing-js#244, processing-j…
CapacitorSet Oct 9, 2016
e2acf51
Fix random with 2 args; improve test suite
CapacitorSet Oct 10, 2016
30a7026
Fix test suite as per comments
CapacitorSet Oct 11, 2016
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 7 additions & 7 deletions src/P5Functions/Math.js
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -425,14 +425,14 @@ module.exports = function withMath(p, undef) {
* @see randomSeed
* @see noise
*/
p.random = function() {
if(arguments.length === 0) {
return internalRandomGenerator();
p.random = function(aMin, aMax) {
if (arguments.length === 0) {
aMax = 1;
aMin = 0;
} else if (arguments.length === 1) {
aMax = aMin;
aMin = 0;
}
if(arguments.length === 1) {
return internalRandomGenerator() * arguments[0];
}
var aMin = arguments[0], aMax = arguments[1];
if (aMin === aMax) {
return aMin;
}
Expand Down
10 changes: 5 additions & 5 deletions test/unit/random.pde
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -48,15 +48,15 @@ randomSeed(14);
var minSample = 30, maxSample = 40;
for(int i=0;i<attempts;++i) {
var sample = r1[i];
if(sample < 0 || sample >= 1) _checkTrue(false); // bad random with no args
if (!(sample < 1 && sample >= 0)) _checkTrue(false); // bad random with no args
Copy link
Member

@Pomax Pomax Oct 10, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hm, the old test code should have already done the right thing: if sample is less than 0 or it's greater or equal to one, it should throw an error, by exploiting the fact that false will obviously fail a checkTrue check.

Can you explain how this rewrite improves on it? (it has certainly become harder to understand at a glance with this new ordering and effective double negative)

}
for(int i=0;i<attempts;++i) {
var sample = random(maxSample);
if(sample < 0 || sample >= maxSample) _checkTrue(false); // bad random with one arg
if (!(sample < maxSample || sample >= 0)) _checkTrue(false); // bad random with one arg
}
for(int i=0;i<attempts;++i) {
var sample = random(minSample, maxSample);
if(sample < minSample || sample >= maxSample) _checkTrue(false); // bad random with two arg
if (!(sample < maxSample && sample >= minSample)) _checkTrue(false); // bad random with two arg
}

double r,
Expand All @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ double r,
boolean failed = false;
for (int i=0; i<100000; i++) {
r = random(a, b);
if (r >= b || r < a) {
if (!(r < b && r >= a)) {
failed = true;
break;
}
Expand All @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ double r,
boolean failed = false;
for (int i=0; i<100; i++) {
r = random(b);
if (r >= b || r < 0) {
if (!(r < b && r >= 0)) {
failed = true;
break;
}
Expand Down