> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> a écrit : > > On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >> >> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? > > Ok. As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain > the actual number check. I'm fine with the resting being an RE, if someone > wants to do that.
Which test case should retain the actual number check? and could elaborate why? These tests are fragile and the RE have already been changed in the past. Dominique
