----- Original Message ----
From: A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> so by now we’ve had quibbles about the “irregularity” of `skip`,
> `can_ok` and `isa_ok`, and a suggestion that the test name always
> go first. Conclusion?
>
> Had they been named parameters, we wouldn’t be having this
> discussion.
>
> And you know what? We don’t even need Test::More::NextGen to
> implement that. All functions as they stand could unambiguously
> accept a hashref as their single argument.
That's going to cause other problems.
use Test::Exception;
lives_ok { @args }; # hashref or coderef?
In any event, one of the reasons why folks are using Test::More and friends is
because of how easy they are to use. One of the reasons many non-Perl
communities are using TAP is because of how easy it is to parse. Constant
discussions of limitations need to focus on the ease-of-use combined with the
flexibility we need. Using a hashref to enforce named parameters gives us
flexibility, but certainly not ease-of-use.
Cheers,
Ovid
-- If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send
follow up questions to the list.
Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
