On 2011.10.28 12:23 AM, Ovid wrote:
> Echo chamber alert: I've often seen long discussions on this list ignore
> the "real world" (though often for good reason). In this case, it sounds
> like there's a consideration of removing a feature from TAP.
No, not removing from TAP but removing support fo
On 2011.10.28 6:52 AM, David Golden wrote:
> Without looking at the actual code, I would guess that the complexity
> is implementing subtests while preserving the legacy procedural
> interface that wraps calls to a global singleton.
No, that's not really the problem. It was when Ovid originally i
Hey,
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
> Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
> which have their own separate test state (as currently implemented)
This may be me being dim - but I'm not really groking the distinction you're
making. C
On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> [snip]
>> Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
>> which have their own separate test state (as currently implemented)
>
> This may be me being dim - but I'm not
On 29 October 2011 18:20, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
>>> which have their own separate test state (as currently
Should have been sent to the list, not just Fergal.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/
Twitter- http://twitter.com/
On 30 October 2011 00:34, Ovid wrote:
> Should have been sent to the list, not just Fergal.
>
> Cheers,
> Ovid
> --
> Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/
> Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
> Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/use
- Original Message -
> From: chromatic
> To: perl-qa@perl.org
> Cc: Michael G Schwern
> Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 9:36
> Subject: Re: Event handling: One method per event or one method for all?
>
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 09:58 PM, Michael G wrote:
>
>> So now the que
On 2011.10.29 3:51 AM, Fergal Daly wrote:
> It seems like it's impossible then to declare a global plan in advance
> if you use subtests unless you go counting all the sub tests which is
> no fun,
Yes, that's a very good point.
use Test::More tests => 3;
subtest "first" => sub { ... };
