On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 7:52 PM Đoàn Trần Công Danh
<congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
A local specialized function makes sense to me.
