On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 02:36:24AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > Agreed. I wouldn't mind the version where test_stdout grabs "expected" > from <<EOF, but, as you say, it doesn't buy much over the manually > prepared test_cmp version. > > I suppose that the one-liner form of test_stdout could have its uses, > however, it bothers me for a couple reasons: (1) it's not generally > useful like the version which grabs "expected" from <<EOF, (2) it > squats on a nice concise name which would better suit the <<EOF > version. I think you could get around your second objection by making "-" a magic token, like: test_stdout - = git rev-parse ... <<-\EOF false EOF Though I admit the combination of "-" and "=" is pretty ugly to read. I'm OK with abandoning this line of inquiry, too. This may be a case where a little repetition makes things a lot less magical to a reader, and it's not worth trying to devise the perfect helper. > Anyhow, this may all be moot (for now) since I think this patch series > is going in the wrong direction entirely by abandoning the systematic > approach taken by the original t1500 code, as explained in my > review[1]. If modernization of t1500 retains a systematic approach, > then the repetitive code which prompted the suggestion of test_stdout > won't exist in the first place. Fair enough. I haven't really followed the other part of the series very closely. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html