On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > That's a bit verbose. We could hide it behind something like test_eq,
> > too, but it introduces several extra new processes.
>
> What do you mean by "extra new processes"? Whether open coded in a
> verbose way, or wrapped inside a helper, e.g.
>
> test_eql () {
> echo "$1" >expect &&
> shift &&
> "$@" >actual &&
> test_cmp expect actual
> }
> ...
> test_eql whatever do_something
>
> the number of processes would be the same, no?
>
> Or do you mean test_cmp is an extra process compared with
>
> test_eq whatever "$(do_something)"
Sorry, yeah, I meant new processes versus "test $foo = $bar".
> Hopefully, do_something does something more than what takes test_cmp
> to run, so I wouldn't be worried too much about it.
Yeah, I may just be overly paranoid here. If we are not worried about a
few extra processes, then the test_eql you showed above may be
preferable, because its output is uniform with other test_cmp tests
(although maybe it also introduces problems, because it does not handle
stray whitespace in the same way, and it puts extra files in the working
tree).
-Peff
--
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
