Re: [PATCHv2 2/7] revision.h: introduce blob/tree walking in order of the commits

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> > > <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >         ...
> > > >         (
> > > >                 for x in four three
> > > >                 do
> > > >                         git rm $x &&
> > > >                         git commit -m "remote $x" ||
> > > >                         exit
> > > >                 done
> > > >         ) &&
> > > >         test 0 -eq $? &&
> > > >         ...
> > > >
> > > > Ugly? Yes. Correct? Also yes.
> > > 
> > > I think returning non-zero with "return" is how other tests avoid an
> > > extra level of subshell.
> > > Ugly? Yes. Correct? Questionable but it seems to work for those who
> > > wrote them ;-)
> > 
> > Given that the test_expect_* functions evaluate the code, it makes me
> > wonder whether those `return` statements really return appropriately, or
> > one call level too low.
> 
> The test_expect functions eval the actual snippets inside a dummy
> function. This is intentional exactly to allow them to call "return" at
> will.