[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I was poking around on CPAN and noticed this rather complete
>> alternative to Pod::Tests for embedding tests in code, a bit closer to
>> what Barrie was discussing.
>>
>> I've invited the author onto the list and hopefully he'll say a few
>> words. I'd also like peo
Johan Vromans wrote:
>
> As an active non-smoker,
Me too - an _EX_ which is perhaps worse :-)
> I'd appreciate a different name.
How about:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(daily|weekly|...)build(er)*[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
"Christian Lemburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> I was poking around on CPAN and noticed this rather complete
> >> alternative to Pod::Tests for embedding tests in code, a bit closer to
> >> what Barrie was discussing.
> >>
> >> I've invited the author onto the li
> > I agree. You are invited! Join the PerlUnit folks on sourceforge.
> > Sorry for not testing everything. We are working on that.
> > (Hope you did not play with version 0.12 ... :-( ...).
>
> Hmm... the one I've got here is 0.11. Is that worse or better?
Better. It has one bad patch less.
0.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:41:27PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Surely the todo stuff should always run the test and complain if it
> succeeds. That's why there's a distinction between 'todo' and 'skip'.
Yes, that's the way it will work.
I think there's some confusion with todo() because I keep
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:48:18PM -0500, barries wrote:
> Might also be nice to have a member like assert_valid() that could do
> runtime self-checks, perhaps, and SelfTest could stub it out as sub
> assert_valid() {} if need be. Stray thought that, though I've found
> self-testing objects at ru
