On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0500, barries wrote:
> I think the API we've been honing is very compact and usable, FWIW.
> Many thanks for taking the bullshit by the horns.
I'll rewrite the Testing POD tonite based on all this and see what
comes out. I might even write some code if I'm fee
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:40:25PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:28:34PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > I mean old-style single arg calls:
> >
> > ok( 1 ) ;
>
> That's perfectly valid, too. Or did we leave each other somewhere?
I was probably still thinking ok_if( $co
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:28:34PM -0500, barries wrote:
> I mean old-style single arg calls:
>
> ok( 1 ) ;
That's perfectly valid, too. Or did we leave each other somewhere?
Test::ok( $expr, [$eq, [$more_info]] );
Testing::ok( $expr, [$test_name] );
Right? Only the rare thre
> > especially if you can detect old-style ok() calls and give a helpful
> > suggestion like "did you forget to convert from Test::ok to
> > Testing::ok", as perl does in some other cases.
>
> How can you tell? Testing::ok() nromally takes two arguments, so does
> Test::ok(). And they look simi
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:22:38PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > my $ref = {};
> > expect( $ref, "$ref" );
> >
> > They are not the same. Its not uncommon to accidentally stringify a
> > reference, and I'd like to catch that.
>
> I think this is unstable magic: if you're counting on stringi
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:22:26PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> (This somehow accidentally drifted off list)
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:44:15AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > I tmeans that I was up too early... What I should have said was that
> > you could then do
> >
> >use Testing ;
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:38:01PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:45:29AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > > I'd like to alter what Test::Harness accepts as little as possible,
> > > more in the interest of keeping the harness rules simple than anything
> > > else. Wedging
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:45:29AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > I'd like to alter what Test::Harness accepts as little as possible,
> > more in the interest of keeping the harness rules simple than anything
> > else. Wedging test names in will be difficult enough.
>
> That was just so you could not
(This somehow accidentally drifted off list)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:44:15AM -0500, barries wrote:
> I tmeans that I was up too early... What I should have said was that
> you could then do
>
>use Testing ;
>
>ok 1 ;
Is C so much more work? I'd really like to force
a conscious dec
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:45:29AM -0500, barries wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:42AM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:56:37AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > > You may want to settle on using underscores everywhere or nowhere in the
> > > interests of consistency.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:42AM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:56:37AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > You may want to settle on using underscores everywhere or nowhere in the
> > interests of consistency.
>
> Yeah. Underscores read better but type slower. Hmmm...
Lo
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:56:37AM -0500, barries wrote:
> You may want to settle on using underscores everywhere or nowhere in the
> interests of consistency.
Yeah. Underscores read better but type slower. Hmmm...
> Perhaps it would be a tad easier to assume noplan if there's no plan
> call
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:28:31PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> BEGIN { plan tests => $Num_Tests }
> # or
> BEGIN { noplan }
> # or
> BEGIN { skipall }
You may want to settle on using underscores everywhere or nowhere in the
interests of consistency.
Perhaps it would be a tad e
So I've been threatening for a while now to overhaul Test.pm to fix
skip(), add in todo() and named tests. I decided it might be easier
to start with a clean slate first, see what comes up and then retrofit
back onto Test.
I've come up with a theoretical test interface, not too much different
to
14 matches
Mail list logo
