Hi, On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Johannes Schindelin > > > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > ( > > > > for x in four three > > > > do > > > > git rm $x && > > > > git commit -m "remote $x" || > > > > exit > > > > done > > > > ) && > > > > test 0 -eq $? && > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Ugly? Yes. Correct? Also yes. > > > > > > I think returning non-zero with "return" is how other tests avoid an > > > extra level of subshell. > > > Ugly? Yes. Correct? Questionable but it seems to work for those who > > > wrote them ;-) > > > > Given that the test_expect_* functions evaluate the code, it makes me > > wonder whether those `return` statements really return appropriately, or > > one call level too low. > > The test_expect functions eval the actual snippets inside a dummy > function. This is intentional exactly to allow them to call "return" at > will. Tricksy. And a bit unintuitive for script kings such as myself, but okay. Ciao, Dscho
