&gt;NB: replies on wine-devel should be only the bottom<div><br></div><div>Hmm... gmail.... new style compose window.... missed the ...&#39;s - How obvious is that... hopefully sorted?</div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I don&#39;t really understand your point here. You&#39;re echoing the variable<br>


name anyway, so if the &#39;set foo&#39; displays it as well; I don&#39;t see the<br>
advantage of your method<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you have a script which does e.g. set WINE_var1, then it outputs &#39;WINE_var1=42&#39; or whatever, but is that the right value? With the existing echo behviour its a real pain to know, and relies on you using the make test to run all the suite, then compare the output with some predefined list of results. If you have a script which echo&#39;s something like &#39;wine_var1 correctly 42&#39; or &#39;ERROR: wine_var1 is 42 and it should be -1&#39; then you immediately see the result. This is especially useful in that you can then extract the portion you need to test into a standalone command file, test on multiple os&#39;s, add other tests, then put back into the test suite trivially. Far better than just a straight echo out. I&#39;d also suggest such coding mirrors all the other testsuites, where you check the results you expect then and there, meaning the code and expected values are all side by side.</div>

<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>&gt; An interim option might be something like &#39;checkcontents var value var<br>


&gt; value&#39; type routine - would that be better?<br>
<br>
</div>Seems convoluted. Why just no go KISS?<br>
<div><br></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Because of the above - I very strongly believe the above its far clearer when both writing and debugging - See the cmd copy tests, for example</div><div><br></div><div>
Unfortunately this is the point NT4 kicks in and is a right pain... </div><div><br></div><div>My ideal solution:</div><div><div><div>:check_vars</div><div>if &quot;%1&quot;==&quot;&quot; goto :eof</div><div>for /f &quot;tokens=2 delims==&quot; %%i in (&#39;set %1&#39;) do (</div>
<div>  if &quot;%%i&quot;==&quot;%2&quot; (echo %1 correctly %2) else echo ERROR: %1 incorrectly %%i [%2]</div><div>)</div><div>set %1=</div><div>shift</div><div>shift</div><div>rem shift</div><div>goto :check_vars</div></div>
</div><div><br></div><div>This doesnt work as NT4s for /f is just screwed. The only solution I ended up with is the far from ideal</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>:check_vars</div><div>if &quot;%1&quot;==&quot;&quot; goto :eof</div>
<div>call :executecmd set wine_result=%%%1%%</div><div>if &quot;%wine_result%&quot;==&quot;%2&quot; (</div><div>  echo %1 correctly %2</div><div>) else echo ERROR: %1 incorrectly %wine_result% [%2]</div><div>set %1=</div>
<div>shift</div><div>shift</div><div>rem shift</div><div>goto :check_vars</div><div>:executecmd</div><div>%*</div><div>goto :eof</div></div></div><div><br></div><div>Any alternative suggestions?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

In other &quot;non-for /a&quot; test, there&#39;s never a WINE_foo1 anywhere. Using<br>
&quot;foo&quot;, &quot;bar&quot; and &quot;baz&quot; when you have at most 3 arguments seems<br>
standard practice to me.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok, I really dont care what they are called - easy enough to fix with a simple search/replace. </div><div><br></div><div> Any comments on the rest of the patches, especially the code one?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jason</div>
</div></div></div>