On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 09:02:37PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 6:05 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Swapping out the "printf >expect" for a here-doc might make it a bit
> > more readable. I used printf because of the tab handling, but:
> >
> > tab=$(printf "\t")
> > cat >expect <<-EOF
> > ref: ${dst}${tab}HEAD
> > ${oid}${tab}HEAD
> > EOF
> >
> > isn't too bad.
>
> Or just use q_to_tab():
>
> q_to_tab >expect <<-EOF
> ref: ${dst}QHEAD
> ${oid}QHEAD
> EOF
>
> However, the typical use-case for q_to_tab() is when we need a leading
> or trailing TAB character.
Ah, yeah, I forgot we had that. I _thought_ we had a variable ($HT or
something) for this, but it looks like we only define and use it in a
few scripts.
I'm not sure using q_to_tab() is all that readable here, because it
blends into the HEAD token.
> When TAB is embedded within the line, we
> often just use a literal TAB character; indeed, many tests in the
> suite do exactly that, so that would be an even simpler option.
Yeah, that'd probably be OK. I usually shy away from embedded tabs
because they can cause confusion in editors. But we have them already,
and this kind of expected output is not touched all that often.
-Peff
