Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The goal here is to get rid of the verbosity of having e.g. a "test 2 > -ne 2" line for every "test_cmp". We use "$@" as an argument to "test" > to intentionally feed the "test" operator too many arguments if the > functions are called with too many arguments, thus piggy-backing on it > to check the number of arguments we get. > > Before this for each test_cmp invocation we'd emit: > > + test_cmp expect actual > + test 2 -ne 2 > + eval diff -u "$@" > + diff -u expect actual Quite honestly, I do not see what's bad about that and am not all that sympathetic to the cause behind this series. The developer is asking to debug the test script by passing '-x', and see where the test script is broken. Especially since ... > Now we'll get just: > > + test_cmp expect actual > + eval diff -u "$@" > + diff -u expect actual ... we are not removing the 'eval diff -u "$@"' line, I do not think how a few extra trace output lines coming from sanity check hurts all that much. It is worth paying for to have such basic sanity checks expressed in a more natural way (than "oh, this hack would not work when 'one -a two' is used as a path"), I would think. Thanks.
