* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 11:05]:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 03:35]:
> >> It also makes it technically possible to allow the test to
> >> change it's plan mid-stream
> >
> > Without some hypothetical future version of TAP this is only
> > possible if you have run tests before declaring a plan at
> > all, because otherwise the plan will already have been output
> > as the first line of the TAP stream.
>
> Just needs a way to declare that you're going to add to the
> plan up front.
That would work. Of course once you have that, you don’t need to
allow assertions to run without a plan, since one can always say
use Test::More tests => variable => 0;
pass();
plan add_tests => 2;
pass();
instead of
use Test::More;
pass();
plan tests => 2;
pass();
which would still be an error. That way a mistake in a test
script won’t lead to Test::More silently converting an up-front
plan declarations into trailing ones.
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 11:10]:
> Smylers wrote:
> > Wasn't there general agreement only a week or so ago to now
> > allow plans to be specified at the end rather than the start?
> > I was presuming that Schwern's suggestions were in the light
> > of this other change.
>
> No, that was a much more involved thing which involves nested
> plans and multiple plans and such.
Actually, what I remember was about Ovid asking about adding a
way to say “I don’t want to decide on a plan yet but I’ll supply
one later.” AndyA brought up the nested test stuff in the course
of that thread but that issue was not central to Ovid’s RFC.
Essentially it was the same discussion as this one.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
