On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:31:32 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04.11.19 12:29, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:58:20 +0100
> > David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Can we just please rename all "cx" into something like "len"? Or is
> >> there a real need to have "cx" in there?
> >
> > if cx is such a nuisance to you, sure, I can rename it to i
>
> better than random characters :)
will be in v3
> >
> >> Also, I still dislike "test_one_sccb". Can't we just just do
> >> something like
> >>
> >> expect_pgm_int();
> >> rc = test_one_sccb(...)
> >> report("whatever pgm", rc == WHATEVER);
> >> report("whatever rc", lc->pgm_int_code == WHATEVER);
> >>
> >> In the callers to make these tests readable and cleanup
> >> test_one_sccb(). I don't care if that produces more LOC as long as
> >> I can actually read and understand the test cases.
> >
> > if you think that makes it more readable, ok I guess...
> >
> > consider that the output will be unreadable, though
> >
>
> I think his will turn out more readable.
two output lines per SCLP call? I don't think so
