Re: [PATCH] test-suite: Add tests for `for-rdelim-in-port`-related functions.

[Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2760 bytes --]

As I said, I didn't against any of your opinions. But I have my freedom to
comment on what I think important.

So I made my proposal accordingly to the specific issue as you pointed out.
This may not be accepted by you, but that's your freedom to share your mind
further. And I unnecessarily need to respond to it unless I think it's
worth. In case you thought people may misunderstand you, I also care if the
image in your mind is not what showed in your mind. I keep my comments
before anyone show the related code as you described.

But let me emphasize it, this doesn't mean anyone is forced to reimplement
the code. At least I accept the current implementation. Don't forget, these
patches included your efforts either, and I respect that part too, in the
name of the code. Personally, I would like to comment on the existing code
rather than mind.

This thread is not only you and me. Many others are reading it. You don't
need to persuade me. You just claim your mind directly, and wait for folks
agree it, or at least part of it.
Best regards.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 23:18 Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:

> >Here are the "back to the track" reply for folks in this thread.
>
> >
>
> >So the situation is more clear now. The newline in various OS need to
> respectively tested. And my idea is to check OS via (uname) in test cases.
>
> >Now that it's in tests, I think we don't have to talk much about the
> efficiency issue for this specific case.
>
>
>
> No. See what I wrote previously about the subject, and note that most of
> it is independent of whether it’s for testing or not. As you previously
> said you intentionally did not read (parts of) the messages, I’m not going
> to repeat it for you.
>
>
>
> In addition: why not simply _*read*_ the implementation of (ice-9 rdelim)
> to see what platform-detecting mechanism it uses (if any) and reuse that,
> instead of reinventing the wheel? Sounds like it would save effort and
> time, which you seem particularly interested in, and claimed effort/time is
> one of your own arguments against generalisation.
>
>
>
> Also, it doesn’t need to be tested, since read-line is not what’s being
> added or modified here. (Tests for that may be good, but that’s off-topic,
> which you are rather against, and is your most coherent argument against
> generalisation.) Rather, either the used newline in the test needs to be
> adjusted per-platform, or the documentation of read-line needs to be
> adjusted to that \n is always a newline.
>
>
>
> Also, it’s also not a proper “back to the track” reply, since it ignores
> the ‘generalisation’ component of the track.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Maxime Devos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4218 bytes --]