Re: [PATCH 1/4] test-lib-functions: introduce test_line_count_cmd

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2021, 23:19 UTC
Message-ID: <87h7hmzw37.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRFjBXpm_WwSGBYu75z8TabCDZodYi=wKgTamB1a3aGmg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 2:18 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13/06/2021 14:28, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 12 2021, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
>> >> +       { test "x$1" = "x!" && test $# = 1 ; }
>> >> [...]
>> >> +    if test "x$1" = "x!"
>> >
>> > We don't use this test idiom in other places, it's OK to just use "$1" =
>> > "!". I think we're past whatever portability concern made that popular
>> > in some older shell code in the wild.
>>
>> Slightly off topic but if anyone is interested in the history of this
>> test idiom and why it is no longer needed there is a good article at
>> https://www.vidarholen.net/contents/blog/?p=1035
>
> Thanks for the link to the article; it was an interesting read.
> However, the article does seem to say that such idioms and care may
> still be warranted. In particular, the epilog gives an example which
> is still relevant on macOS today. (Indeed, I just tried it and it does
> error out as the article states.) Even discounting macOS, it also
> talks about such bugs existing as late as 2015, which isn't long ago
> by any stretch. (And, as someone whose primary -- indeed only --
> development machine is ten years old, some of the other bugs it
> mentions -- which existed as recently as ten years ago -- don't seem
> all that long ago either.)

It's only for the case where the first byte is "(" or ")" though, so e.g. the use of this to compare things like command-line options and other things that don't start with those characters is portable, if I'm understanding the article correctly.

> At any rate, for those of us who are old-timers, the `"x$foo"` idiom
> is habit and only costs a couple extra characters, so I for one have
> no problem with its presence in the proposed patch.

Indeed, but it's interesting to dig and see if there's any reason for such workarounds still.