On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:23:58PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: > > The patch below allows you to supply your own test name for the isa_ok > > function (I find the default insufficiently descriptive). I'd like to do > > the same for can_ok but I don't think that could be done without breaking > > backwards compatibility. > > What sort of names do you tend to throw in there?
Just something more descriptive than what it generates by default. Something like "Check that object X isa Blah". The key being that I want to say _what_ object I'm checking. -dave /*================== www.urth.org We await the New Sun ==================*/
