[PATCH 1 of 8] tests: add a randomized test for pathencode

[Martin Schröder]

Am 13.11.2012 23:00, schrieb Bryan O'Sullivan:
> This is a probabilistic test - it generates different test cases on every
> run, unless invoked from the command line with a specific seed.

Is that really a good thing? While covering many test cases in the long
run, it is not deterministic. A test might fail in one case and succeed
in another.

I understand that once a run failed, one could test the failing seed
explicit in future runs, but I think good code coverage in the first
place would be better.