On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 05:39:45PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > For instance, I know of a lot of CPAN modules without tests at all, and I
> > talked to a few authors, and even if they decide to add tests (after my
> > 'convincing' emails), it takes time, or never gets done, or the tests are
Tels posted some of his Test::More experiences off-list. Some of them
are rather good so I'll post my reply on-list.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 10:42:55PM +0100, Tels wrote:
> * Use Test::Simple/More for new testfiles. It can help you. If Test::More
> scares you, use Test::Simple or only a subset
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 03:50:12PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0500, Kirrily Robert wrote:
>
> Are we doing the time warp again, or are the Huskies just tired of
> pulling the packets across the border?
>
>
> > How about:
> >
> > compare($foo, "<=", $b
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0500, Kirrily Robert wrote:
Are we doing the time warp again, or are the Huskies just tired of
pulling the packets across the border?
> How about:
>
> compare($foo, "<=", $bar)
cmp_ok(). Close.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:04:17 -0700, Tels wrote:
> First, ok() is no no longer ok(), but is now is(), because ok() is no longer
> ok to use with ok($this,$that); but is() is ok with $that. And then there is
> isnt(), isn't it? Not to speak of the use of can_ok(), which you can use, ok?
> isnt() $t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 11-Dec-01 Kirrily Robert tried to scribble about:
> In perl.qa, you wrote:
>>I think I have a solution to the rigidity of is(). ie. something with
>>the diagnostic output of is(), but the flexibility of ok().
>
>>It all makes sense, so what I really n
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>I think I have a solution to the rigidity of is(). ie. something with
>the diagnostic output of is(), but the flexibility of ok().
>It all makes sense, so what I really need is a better name.
How about:
compare($foo, "<=", $bar)
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL P
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 06:53:20PM -0800, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> Why go to such trouble to have 20 different automagical comparators,
> when you can do whatever you want with anonymous subs and/or eval in ok()?
> Where's the real value? Frankly, I'm getting pretty confused by the
> myriad
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()
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() variant that takes an arbitrary op! My working t
10 matches
Mail list logo
