Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] transport.c: introduce core.alternateRefsPrefixes

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:45:11 -0700

Taylor Blau <[email-masked]> writes:

> ...' block with your suggestion above. It's tempting to introduce it as:
>
>   expect_haves() {
>     printf "%s .have\n" $(git rev-parse -- $@)
>   }
>
> And call it as:
>
>   expect_haves one three two >expect
>
> But I'm not sure whether I think that this is better or worse than
> writing it twice inline.

If the expected pattern is expected to stay to be just a sequence of
"<oid> .have" and nothing else for the foreseeable future, I think
it is a good idea to introduce such a helper function.  Spelling it
out at the use site, e.g.

	printf "%s .have\n" $(git rev-parse a b c) >expect

will become cumbersome once the set of objects you need to show
starts growing.

	expect_haves a b c >expect

would be shorter, of course.  And as long as we expect to have ONLY
"<oid> .have" lines and nothing else, there is no downside that the
details of the format is hidden away inside the helper.