--- Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # from Adam Kennedy
> # on Saturday 19 January 2008 18:23:
>
> >I'm not sure why BAIL_OUT wouldn't be the appropriate thing in that
> > case.
>
> What's the guy's name on second? That's right.
Heh :)
> Geoffrey asked why we're having this discussion, apparently he was
> not
> realizing that some people were requesting something like:
>
> package Test::More;
> sub ok {
> ...
> if($ENV{SOME_SILLY_HARNESSY_VARIABLE_ABOUT_STOPPING}) {
> ...
> ...
>
> Which shouldn't ever and hopefully ain't not never gonna happen.
It's already happened in Test::Most and works quite beautifully. I now
agree with chromatic that the ENV variable is better placed in the
harness, but right now, it seemed like there was some agreement that
it's OK to have this behavior (whether it stops the code or stops the
output is debatable).
This once again seems like the difference between people thinking about
code instead of using code. (How many times have we've heard that
dynamic languages are "bad" because you can't guarantee the type of a
variable, yet those who use them for a while often get converted?)
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/
Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
