Am 23.07.24 um 00:41 schrieb Kyle Lippincott: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 12:37 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Kyle Lippincott <spectral@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I can see based on this description where the name came from, but >>> without this context, it's not clear when reading a test what it >>> actually does. The name comes from an implementation detail, and is >>> not describing what it _does_, just _how_ it does it. >>> >>> Maybe a name like `small_test` or `quick_test` or something like that >>> would better express the intended usage? >> >> Names that explicitly have C keyword for control structures, e.g. >> "if_somecondition_test()", "while_foo_test()" or "for_test()" is >> vastly preferrable than these, in order to make it clear that we are >> introducing a macro that defines control structure. > > Perhaps expression_test or something, then? It's testing an expression > (I think blocks are a type of expression? I never remember which is > 'larger': expressions or statements, and that might only be a C++ > thing, C might not have the same terminology). If in doubt, feel free to look it up. We're not taking a test here (bad pun intended). https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/expressions https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/statements TEST requires test bodies to be expressions, for_test allows them to be statements. Statements can include arbitrary expressions, but not the other way around. The "for" in for_test indicates that it's a for-like macro. This already implies that it is followed by a statement. It works for the existing for_each macros. René
