Am 25.07.24 um 11:45 schrieb Phillip Wood: > On 23/07/2024 14:24, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> For example in test-ctype.c where testing the ctype macros leads to >> a lot of repetition or a giant macro with a function based >> approach. > > Having re-read the history of t/unit-tests/t-ctype.c I don't think > the repetition in the original version was really that bad. The > objection to it seems to have been that one had to write the class > name (for example isalpha()) twice - once when defining the test > function and again when calling it. I'm not sure that is really worth > worrying about. I can't see the purpose of requiring repetition like that. It's an unnecessary obstacle, small as it may be. In the case of t-ctype it was a regression to the original test helper code. It's easy to avoid with existing functions, except that those are off-limits to allow for future changes. So it's just a matter of packaging them nicely. > So overall I'm less convinced that adding something like for_test() > is necessary and I'm very convinced that calling it for_test() and > using "continue" to exit a test early is going to confuse > contributors. I didn't expect anybody would want to use continue or break in a test, but that's probably naive. I got carried away there by the prospect of a trivial macro-only solution, but alas, it's too clunky. Two steps back.. René
