Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Indeed, I have no problem seeing this as a new mode of > test_line_count() triggered by an option. In fact, I suggested exactly > that[1] when this idea first arose (except I named the option `-c` > rather than `-e`, but the latter is fine). However, my suggestion was > pretty much shot down[2] (and I don't entirely disagree with [2], > which is why I didn't pursue the idea in [1]). ;-) Yeah, I still am skeptical that we'd gain much by hiding the redirection to >actual behind the helper, so as I said in response to the v2 series, I am fine without this new helper or an enhanced test_line_count, but go with more use of test_must_be_empty etc.
