Adrian Howard wrote at Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:40:52 +:
> I'd argue that Test::Warn isn't the right place :-) To me sending
> output to STDERR and warnings are different things.
Absolutely.
> If added to Test::Warn I'd argue for separate functions. I've had
> situations where warnings were log
Jeez! These people with free time :-) ;-)
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 04:00 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:52AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
I always meant to revisit the idea for Test::Output which was intended
to be a generic FILEHANDLE output testing module. Al
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:52AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> I always meant to revisit the idea for Test::Output which was intended
> to be a generic FILEHANDLE output testing module. Allows you to do
> things like:
>
> output_is { hello() } "hello world\n", STDOUT, "hello world";
> outp
I'd argue that Test::Warn isn't the right place :-) To me sending
output to STDERR and warnings are different things.
If added to Test::Warn I'd argue for separate functions. I've had
situations where warnings were logged, and STDERR was meant for user
readable output. Having them merged would
As comes up pretty often, people want to trap stuff on STDERR. I've got
adhoc stuff to do that in TieOut.pm, but I've never really found a good
place to put it in a module.
Test::Warn seems like its a good spot. Warnings and stuff going directly
to STDERR are related beasts. So if Janek wants
