----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael Peters <mpet...@plusthree.com>
>
> > use Test::Fluent 'no_plan';
> >
> > my ( $have, $want ) = ( 1, 1 );
> > have $have, want $want, reason 'Some test name';
> > have [ 3, 4 ], want [ 4, 5 ], reason 'cuz I said so'; # fails
> > true 3, reason '3 had better be true';
> > false 3, reason '3 had better still better be true'; # fails
>
> I would much rather see something like
>
> cmp_ok(
> have => 1,
> want => 2,
> reason => 'Some test name',
> diagnostic => { world => $world },
> );
>
> Much more Perlish. I've always disliked some APIs where it's not immediately
> clear what's a function call and what's an argument to that function: is
> reason() an argument to want() or have()?. It also seems more obvious for
> doing
> things like data-driven tests where you just have a large data structure that
> tests are run against.
I've thought about this idea for the past couple of days and while there's
nothing *wrong* with your cmp_ok() idea, it doesn't do anything for me. I'm
rather curious about stretching my wings, so to speak, and seeing how
interesting an interface I could create and whether or not it's useful.
cmp_ok() is old ground and anyone could write it.
As for your comment "what's a function call and what's an argument", I know
what you mean, but again, how can we think about something in a larger context
and see what we can accomplish? I want to try something new.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
