Am 10/25/2013 10:09, schrieb John Keeping:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:12:10AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> You could put the loops into a function from which you 'return', but that
>> is obscure in this case. The first iteration was better, IMO.
> Wouldn't it be simpler to just return from the test?  That is, replace
> the "break" in the above patch with "return 1".

Good catch! We explicitly have

test_eval_ () {
        # This is a separate function because some tests use
        # "return" to end a test_expect_success block early.
        eval </dev/null >&3 2>&4 "$*"

to protect this use of return.

-- Hannes
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to