From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:37:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] unit-tests: add for_test
Message-ID: <789d99ab-8d39-4f5f-a800-6ed5dd19d23e@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAO_smViM7_Er4hY_WvxJf_xWGtKVN29gJA9APzW3t3GdAaxsgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Am 23.07.24 um 00:47 schrieb Kyle Lippincott:
>
> If we have a good set of protections against misuse, does this mean
> we're free to rename it? :) The concern raised for why `for` had to be
> in the name was because it was using a control statement (a
> at-most-1-execution for loop) to achieve its magic, and the control
> statement puts certain restrictions and obligations on how to use it
> correctly. If the misuse is detected reliably, we can choose a name
> that's more descriptive about what it's doing.

Well, I called it "test" initially because I'm lazy and it describes
its purpose.

But the fact remains that this is an iteration statement, even though
it kinda looks like a function, and it should be used as such.  We have
to explicitly tell clang-format, and having "for" in the name reminds
developers as well.

There is a slight dissonance between it executing at most once and it
being an iteration.  In C we commonly use conditionals ("if") for that.
Calling it "if_test" would be misleading with "for" under the hood,
though, as you cannot have an "else" branch -- which we don't need
anyway.

That said, iterating zero or one times is possible and understandable
not too much of a stretch IMHO.  I can understand that one needs a
minute to get used to that new keyword, though.

René