A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-05 04:30]: >> Why do they care if the plan is output at the beginning or end? >> How does this stricture improve the quality of the test? > > It improves the resulting TAP stream, if not the test itself.
What's "improved" about the plan coming at the front as opposed to at the end? Give me something concrete, not just "it's better". I'm going to keep drilling through the BS until I either hit bottom or punch through. About all that's different when the plan is at the end is the TAP reader doesn't know how many tests are coming until the end of the test. Then it can't display the expected number of tests while the test is running. Unfortunate, but hardly a showstopper. > But maybe it’s not necessary to impose this stricture by default, > and instead of asking to be allowed to supply a plan later, as I > proposed, people should instead have to ask for the stricture: Again I ask, why make them ask? >> Honestly all that's really holding that up is a good name for >> the plan style and "I'm done testing" terminator. Nothing has >> really lept out at me yet. Maybe something as straight forward >> as... >> >> plan 'until_done'; >> >> .... >> >> done_testing; > > plan 'until_completion'; > # ... > plan 'completed'; I don't want to saddle plan() with yet another feature. It will most definitely be it's own function. -- The interface should be as clean as newly fallen snow and its behavior as explicit as Japanese eel porn.
