Ian Collins wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > >Ian Collins wrote: > >>Roland Mainz wrote: > >>>Ian Collins wrote: [snip] > >>Are you serious?? > > > >Erm, yes I am serious since I don't know the exact term "unit tests". I > >am not a native english speaker and try to be carefull before answering > >something completely wrong. With "unit tests" you mean "test suite for > >|wordexp()|", right ? > > OK, sorry. In my little corner of the software world the term unit > tests is well known and defined. To answer your question, yes I would > have added a set or suite of tests for |wordexp()| to understand and > document its operation.
There is the manual page and the OpenGroup specs... that's AFAIK all what's available in the "public". Getting access to the tests is difficult since they're AFAIK not opensource (except the glibc ones) which means we would have to write our own set of tests... ;-( > >>>>6 - 109, are multiple variables declared in one line acceptable? > >>>> > >>>cstyle says "yes"... :-) > >>> > >>Yuck. > > > >Why ? Sometimes it's usefull, sometimes it's just ugly. I've seen > >worse... MUCH worse things... =:-) > > > I've yet to see a time when it is useful. Well, in this case the comment gives at least a raw hint what the variables do... :-) ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
