On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 01:52:09AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > I.e.: > > > > { > > printf "git-upload-pack /interp.git\n\0host=localhost" | > > test-tool pkt-line pack-raw-stdin && > > printf "0000" | test-tool pkt-line pack > > } >input > > > > (again here the packing of "0000" is pointless, but I'm OK with it for > > consistency). > > Sure, I can use {} blocks, but re the reply on 3/5 about "0000" > v.s. "0000\n" you'd like to move back to print not-a-newline here > v.s. having the helper eat lines ending with \n like everywhere else? > > It's not incorrect in this case, it just seems less obvious to > me. I.e. the printf in the former case is because we explicitly care > about the exact raw input, if there's a trailing \n or not, in the > latter case we don't, so I think it's clearier to use the usual <<-\EOF > pattern rather than printf. I don't think it's incorrect in any of the cases. I was just noting that "printf 0000" is fewer characters and fewer processes than either piping to pkt-line or using a here-doc. I don't feel strongly on using it if you want to keep things consistent between the tests. Nor on using a here-doc versus piping (I don't see any problem with switching between them based on which is shorter or more readable in any given instance; if you're piping, it could also be "echo"). -Peff