Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> The possibility is obvious.  Are you advocating it?
> I considered that approach, but came to the opinion that it would be
> overkill that would only complicate the code for no real advantage,
> given that (1) I picked a name that is pretty implausible for an
> existing file, (2) the test suite only reads the file, never writes it
> (so there is no risk that a copy from a previous run gets left behind),
> (3) it's only test suite code, and any failures would have minor
> consequences.

(4) if it only runs once at the very beginning of the test and sets
a variable that is named prominently clear what it means and lives
throughout the test, then we do not even have to say "hopefully" and
appear lazy and loose to the readers of the test who wonders what
happens when the path does exist; doing so will help reducing the
noise on the mailing list in the future.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to