On Dec 15, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> Ok, so that's a bit off the topic of "why use isa_ok()" but I just don't
> see why people seem to object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
> tests. I can't see how it couldn't help improve the quality of the tests
> while providing a standardized way to do
On Dec 14, Michael Schwern wrote:
> Constructors fail often enough that I felt it worthwhile to write a
> test function for them.
>
> You could leave off the test entirely and just trust that you use $foo
> later on down in the test and it'll explode there, but its better to
> put the point of fa
On Dec 10, Michael Schwern wrote:
> I think I have a solution to the rigidity of is(). ie. something with
> the diagnostic output of is(), but the flexibility of ok().
>
> The principle idea being to replace code like:
>
> ok( $foo <= $bar ) || print "# $foo <= $bar\n";
>
> Provide an is()
On Oct 06, chromatic wrote:
> All tests pass. Low-hanging fruit.
>
> Should I send a copy to Andreas König as well?
It's always a good idea to cc: the author.
- Kurt
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:11:41PM -0400, Michael Schwern wrote:
> I've got 5.004_04, 5.004_05, 5.005_03, 5.6.1 and bleadperl installed
> to test against. Should I bother with 5.004? Is anyone *seriously*
> using it still?
>
>
> PS When I say 5.004, I mean the original 5.004 release.
If
Mike,
I'm glad you're looking out for Kwalitee, and I have observation about
the RFC's you've offered. None of them have milestones or completion
states.
I think that QC in Perl is very important, and has historically lacked
the commitment that you're bringing to it, but I'd like to sug
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 04:51:18PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> In One Sentence
> ---
>
> All patches to perl must have an associated testing patch.
I appreciate the direction you're looking, but I do not support your
One Sentence. Many patches are patches to Configure, the
