Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It allows you to apply the policy "all tests have a plan" at the test
> level. Yes, policy often sounds like BS.
>
> By historical accident Test::More has always applied (albeit not in a
> super-formal way) that policy by default.
This BS... err, "policy"... would still be possible. It's a social policy
anyway, not a technical one. It's been possible to run a test without a plan
for a long time. Whatever they have in place to deal with no_plan can deal
with this.
>> 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.
>
> Yes. That leads a shop to implement the policy "all tests must plan".
>
> If you don't want to support that policy-application, fine. It can be
> solved in other ways -- maybe they're cleaner. A switch in the harness
> doesn't seem to be it, but maybe a Test::MustPlan (complete with
> syntactic-sugar for the annoying BEGIN thing.)
I'll put in some Test::Builder->must_have_plan flag to allow the current
behavior to be switched back on rather than wholely deleting it. It's all
encapsulated in a method anyway.
--
<Schwern> What we learned was if you get confused, grab someone and swing
them around a few times
-- Life's lessons from square dancing
