On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 09:24:38PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
> Matthew Astley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Matthew Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > > Eww... If you're going to keep state like that, keep it per run and
> > > > > stick it in the Listener methinks.
> > > >
> > > > Well it hasn't even got that far AFAICR. Did we ever find some
> > > > concrete examples of "state" we wanted to keep?
> > > >
> > > > - backtrace quelledness
> > > > - (some) debug handlers
> > > >
> > > > are the only ones that spring to mind just now.
>
> Don't forget my idea (patch soon) of having filter tokens, so that you
> can control which test methods get run by tokens. The tokens would
> certainly need to be state in the listener.
Perhaps persistent too, if they're calculated rather than stated in
the source? Seems a little OTT though.
I've updated docs/consensus.txt .. does anyone else use that?
> > I'm assuming that somebody uses them though, since somebody bothered
> > to add the code. <shrug>
>
> Looks like Christian did, according to cvs annotate, but he's away at
> the moment I think.
ISTR it was a patch someone else submitted, looking at back-issues of
the message board but IMBW. Killing it suits me, that was the first
thing I wanted to do once I'd figure out roughly how the system
worked.
Matthew #8-)
_______________________________________________
Perlunit-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel
