On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:57:42AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Ovid wrote:
> > In any event, I'm completely mystified why anyone has a problem with
> > the "subtest $name, sub { ...}" syntax. Honestly :)
>
> So why are people so bothered by it? Is it mostly about not wanting "sub" in
> th
David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:59 PM, David Golden wrote:
>
>> As long as we're bike-shedding, a simplification:
>>
>> subtest {
>>plan "sanity check" => 3;
>>pass for 1 .. 3;
>> }
>>
>> Anything other than "no_plan" or "skip_all" is taken as if "tests".
>
> I thought o
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Ovid wrote:
> I understand where you're coming from, but different things should look
> different. SKIP and TODO are relatively similar, but subtests are
> significantly different from them.
The implementation is vastly different, but semantically, they just
pro
--- On Thu, 25/6/09, Josh Heumann wrote:
> From: Josh Heumann
>
> > As long as we're bike-shedding, a simplification:
> >
> > subtest {
> > plan "sanity check" => 3;
> > pass for 1 .. 3;
> > }
>
> +1
>
> I like anything that keeps it roughly in line with the
> syntax for TODO
> a
> As long as we're bike-shedding, a simplification:
>
> subtest {
> plan "sanity check" => 3;
> pass for 1 .. 3;
> }
+1
I like anything that keeps it roughly in line with the syntax for TODO
and SKIP blocks:
SKIP: {
skip $why, $how_many unless $have_some_feature;
