On 7/20/06, Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When something like
> >>> use Test::More tests => 'defer';
was emitted, it would mean the test *should* tell the plan at the end.
If it doesn't, it is a failure. I don't think this is no protection.
It may be an improvement to 'no_plan' in certain circumstances.
From the point of view of TAP, it looks like it does not need any
extension at all. The difference may be at API level only, while
'no_plan' says to the test framework, Test::Builder, to emit the right
plan at the end, that would mean the plan would come later and from
the test script. And in this case, the plan should be verified - if it
is wrong, it implies failure.
use Test::More;
plan 'later';
plan tests => $n; # only in this case, it is not planning twice,
# it is filling up the plan as promised
