Re: [PATCH 0/9] test: (hopefully) better test prerequisites

[Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:17:16 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If we follow this pattern than all code like:
> 
>   f() {
>     if (!done_once)
>         do_once
> 
>     do_more
>   }
> 
> Should be rewritten using dynamic functions. I do not think I agree with
> this :)
> 
> Anyway, all above is just IMHO.  You should probably go ahead and
> prepare a patch implementing this approach for others to review.

I probably won't. While I was looking something in your patch and I was
thinking how to fix I just got this idea and wrote it to see whether
other's see as I do. The discussion got a bit side-tracked as I just
look this tiny part of the whole. Your later patch looks more
understandable than the previous (which emacs || emacs || return) and
it is something I can live with :) -- Just for now I'm not going to 
work on the whole anyway.

> 
> Regards,
>   Dmitry
> 

Thanks,
Tomi