On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:47:43PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > We could add that example to the test helper as then we have a good (tested) > > example for that case, too. > > What we could *also* do, and what would probably make *even more* sense, > is to simplify the example drastically, to a point where testing it in > test-hashmap is pointless, and where a reader can gather *very* quickly > what it takes to use the hashmap routines.
Yes, I'd be in favor of that, too. > In any case, I would really like to see my patch applied first, as it is a > separate concern from what you gentle people talk about: I simply want > that incorrect documentation fixed. The earlier, the better. Definitely. I think it is in "next" already. -Peff
