On 2021-06-19 15:50:17+0900, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I guess the overall feedback for this new helper is negative.
I think the consensus here is a local helper in t640{0,2} for counting
ls-files?
--
Danh
