Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'd also be OK dropping this. 12% is nice, but this one test is an
> outlier. Picking t4202 somewhat at random as a more realistic test, any
> improvement seems to be mostly lost in the noise.
>
> t/test-lib.sh | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
> index cfcbd899c5a..0048ec7b6f6 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -1101,9 +1101,10 @@ test_run_ () {
> trace=
> # 117 is magic because it is unlikely to match the exit
> # code of other programs
> - if test "OK-117" != "$(test_eval_ "fail_117 && $1${LF}${LF}echo OK-\$?" 3>&1)"
> + test_eval_ "fail_117 && $1"
> + if test $? != 117
> then
> - BUG "broken &&-chain or run-away HERE-DOC: $1"
> + BUG "broken &&-chain: $1"
> fi
This "here-doc" linter is a cute trick. With seemingly so little
extra code, it catches a breakage in such an unexpected way.
Even with a very small code footprint, overhead of an extra process
is still there, and it would be very hard to figure out what it does
(once you are told what it does, you can probably figure out how it
works). These make it a "cute trick".
While it is a bit sad to see it lost, the resulting code certainly
is easier to follow, I would think. I do not offhand know how
valuable detecting unterminated here-doc is, compared to the
increased clarity of hte code.
Thanks.
