Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> Good. >> >> Even better would be to make the old one optional, though. > > I was also a bit torn when writing this. We could of course make the > behaviour conditional on whether `argc` is 4 or 5. But I wasn't quite > sure how important it is to provide a nice UI for this test helper, and > we don't have `argc` readily available. It's not hard to count them > manually, but until now I was under the impression that the test helpers > only need to be "good enough". Yup, good enough would probably be good enough in this case, I agree ;-)
