On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:57:48PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
> Also, there's some weirdness with webchatpp's generated code if your
> WWW::Chat script was inside subroutines (or presumably other blocks).
> Here's a real life example:
> [snippage]
> It would be nice if we could get this t
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 07:06:45PM -0400, Michael G Schwern said:
> > Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
> > makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
> > modules.
>
> I can solve this from my end by providing control over Test::More's
> i
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 07:06:45PM -0400, Michael G Schwern said:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:57:48PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
> > Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
> > makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
> > modules.
>
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:57:48PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
> Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
> makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
> modules.
I can solve this from my end by providing control over Test::More's
imported
Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
modules.
Since WWW::Chat's fail() is only used internally, could I possibly
request that it be changed to not export, and/or rename it _fail, or
whatever. Anythi
