Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Another reason I'm "meh" about this function is that it seems too > narrowly focussed, insisting that the "expect" argument is expressed > as a one-liner. (Yes, I know that that is not a hard limitation; a > caller can pass in a multiline string, but still...) Maybe I'd be less > jaded if it accepted "expect" on its stdin. But, even that doesn't > seem to buy much. The vast majority of cases where you've converted: > > test "$dir" = "$(test-tool path-utils real_path $dir2)" && > > to: > > test_cmp_cmd "$dir" test-tool path-utils real_path $dir2 && > > could just have easily become: > > echo "$dir" >expect && > test-tool path-utils real_path $dir2 >actual && > test_cmp expect actual > > which isn't bad at all, even if it is one line longer, and it is > idiomatic in this test suite. [jc: updated the rewritten example] And it is crystal clear that "expect" and "actual" are clobbered if written that way.
