On 12/6/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 07:54 +0000, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > I wonder if there is a macroey thing that we can do here. That is,
> > could we make:
> >
> > ok(1);
> > is(1, 1);
> > like("foo", /foo/);
> >
> > Into:
> >
> > ok(1);
> > ok(1 == 1);
> > ok("foo" ~~ /foo/);
>
> Can you do it without giving up the nice diagnostics that
> Test::More::is() provides?
The answer to your question was in the next sentence:
> > And lexically analyze the argument to ok() to find
> > out how to report the error?
I guess that wasn't much of an answer, but more of a question.
Anyway, yes, that is what I was hoping. However, I agree with Brent
Dax about keeping the test module simple--at least for the compiler
test suite. However, I think this DWIMmery might work well in module
test suites.
That still leaves the problem of what to do with fail() and is() in
the compiler suite.
Here's a handwavey crack at what I was talking about:
my $comparators = set <== ~~ eq
macro is($arg, ?$reason_tree) {
my $reason = $reason_tree.run;
