On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 02:37:35PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 23.07.24 um 11:53 schrieb Patrick Steinhardt: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:25:29AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Am 23.07.24 um 08:36 schrieb Patrick Steinhardt: > >>> There is of course some magic involved with how we generate the file. > >> > >> It requires magic function names and generates code using a different > >> language, while for_test is a just single new control flow keyword, > >> like the dozen or so we already have. So the magic employed by the > >> libgit2 system is both broader and deeper. > > > > It is broader, that's certainly true. But it feels more self-contained, > > less fragile and easier to read to me compared to macros. > > In which ways can for_test break? I was mostly referring to the potential for empty-by-accident test bodies that were mentioned in other parts of this thread. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
