Geoffrey Young wrote:
> I guess what I thought you were getting at was a natural decoupling of
> comparison functions with the planning without all the hackery involved
> to get that sepraration working now. so I was suggesting that the
> decoupling go further than just no_plan, and that yeah, rock on, great
> idea. 'tis all :)
I see what you're getting at. I don't think I'm going that far, though I'm
willing to help somehow with the "I want to paste a bunch of subtest processes
together" problem.
One of the original issues Test::More was designed to deal with was the
problem of running individual tests without having to parse the test output
(by eye or by computer) to get an accurate result.
That's why it changes the exit code on failure and why it has the ending
diagnostic message if there's a failure. While prove and TAP::Parser help, I
still like running tests by hand to get complete control.
--
If at first you don't succeed--you fail.
-- "Portal" demo
