Skip to content

Conversation

@jmid
Copy link
Collaborator

@jmid jmid commented Jan 20, 2026

On Discuss it was pointed out that the int_pos* documentation wasn't particularly well worded:

Anyway, I don’t advocate any change in the code, but maybe the documentation Gen (qcheck-core.QCheck2.Gen) can be made a bit more consistent (e.g., the doc of int_pos_small says “positive integers (0 included)”, the doc of int_pos says “non-strictly positive”).

https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ann-qcheck-0-90-the-great-renaming/17613/5

This PR thus intends to better this by

  • being more consistent about starting with Generates ...
  • eliminating the slightly unusual non-strictly positive
  • stating [0] inclusive consistently

On purpose I haven't touched the stated upper bounds (< 100, < [10_000]) as the intention is to revise some of these distributions anyway #368.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant