On 7/11/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 15:28, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whilst I would also like to see something nicer that "got", I'm actually
> > more concerned about the ordering. I always expect to see "expected"
> > first, followed by "got" or "received" or whatever, and I end up having
> > to look at the output a lot closer than I think I should in order to get
> > things the right way around.
> > But perhaps it's just my brain that's wired backwards.
> If so then you aren't the only one.
> I'll repeat my earlier suggestion:
>
> Want: This
> Have: That
I prefer that too. Paul's suggestion about ordering also makes sense.
Of course, is() uses positional arguments in the opposite order.
I think also that people tend to spend a lot more time staring at the
results of a failed test than they do writing the test in the first
place, so while it sucks the order is different it doesnt seem that
bad.
However, if TAP is more successful than just Perl, that argument isn't very
useful. Besides, named arguments are nicer than positional ones.
Yeah, other implementations need not follow Test's precedent in terms
of interface.
cheers,
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
