> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin Smith [mailto:gavinsmith0...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 1:42 PM
> To: Arthur Schwarz
> Cc: Automake Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Question on --test-name=NAME
>
> > As a point, 15.3.3.1 Command-line arguments for test drivers shows all
> >
> As a point, 15.3.3.1 Command-line arguments for test drivers shows all
> options as having the syntax "--option=value". Your example does not have
> this syntax. Will your example work? Should this be in the manual, as in
> "--option[=| ]value?"
I am sure that both should be supported although I
(thanks by the way)
> On 26 April 2015 at 18:39, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
> > Now for the case you mentioned in identifying a program, which is
> > really a test case renamed in the manual for mystifying and unknowable
> > reasons. Well, there is no mechanism for "The first non-option
> > argume
On 26 April 2015 at 18:39, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
> Now for the case you mentioned in identifying a program, which is really a
> test case renamed in the manual for mystifying and unknowable reasons. Well,
> there is no mechanism for "The first non-option argument passed to the test
> driver is the
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin Smith [mailto:gavinsmith0...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 9:03 AM
> To: Arthur Schwarz
> Cc: Automake Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Question on --test-name=NAME
>
> On 26 April 2015 at 16:30, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
> >
> >
> > 15.3.3.1 C
On 26 April 2015 at 16:30, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
>
>
> 15.3.3.1 Command-line arguments for test drivers
>
>--test-name=NAME
>
>The name of the test, with VPATH prefix (if any) removed. This can
> have a suffix and a directory component (as in e.g., sub/foo.test), and is
> mostly meant
15.3.3.1 Command-line arguments for test driversĀ
--test-name=NAME
The name of the test, with VPATH prefix (if any) removed. This can
have a suffix and a directory component (as in e.g., sub/foo.test), and is
mostly meant to be used in console reports about testsuite advancements and
On 26 April 2015 at 01:25, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
>
> Well, putting it gently you have a good product and one of (maybe, the)
> worst manual on earth describing it.
I'd like to see improvements as well, but calling other people's work
"the worst manual on earth" is not conducive to soliciting thei