On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:11:41PM -0400, Michael Schwern wrote:
> I've got 5.004_04, 5.004_05, 5.005_03, 5.6.1 and bleadperl installed
> to test against. Should I bother with 5.004? Is anyone *seriously*
> using it still?
>
>
> PS When I say 5.004, I mean the original 5.004 release.
If
On Oct 06, chromatic wrote:
> All tests pass. Low-hanging fruit.
>
> Should I send a copy to Andreas König as well?
It's always a good idea to cc: the author.
- Kurt
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()
On Dec 14, Michael Schwern wrote:
> Constructors fail often enough that I felt it worthwhile to write a
> test function for them.
>
> You could leave off the test entirely and just trust that you use $foo
> later on down in the test and it'll explode there, but its better to
> put the point of fa
On Dec 15, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> Ok, so that's a bit off the topic of "why use isa_ok()" but I just don't
> see why people seem to object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
> tests. I can't see how it couldn't help improve the quality of the tests
> while providing a standardized way to do
