Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

The possibility is obvious.  Are you advocating it?

I considered that approach, but came to the opinion that it would be
overkill that would only complicate the code for no real advantage,
given that (1) I picked a name that is pretty implausible for an
existing file, (2) the test suite only reads the file, never writes it
(so there is no risk that a copy from a previous run gets left behind),
(3) it's only test suite code, and any failures would have minor
consequences.

(4) if it only runs once at the very beginning of the test and sets
a variable that is named prominently clear what it means and lives
throughout the test, then we do not even have to say "hopefully" and
appear lazy and loose to the readers of the test who wonders what
happens when the path does exist; doing so will help reducing the
noise on the mailing list in the future.