> Hm, that does seem valuable. Should all test modules report their
> versions by default, though?
well, my thought was that it was more important to list the source of the
comparison operators the user uses (like is() or eq_array()) than it was the
internal stuff that, say, interfaces with Test
Fergal Daly wrote:
I was thinking of knocking together Test::AnnounceVersion.
use Test::AnnounceVersion qw(A::List Of::Modules);
which results in
# using version 1.5 of A::List
# using version 0.1 of Of::Modules
supplying no import args would make it output $VERSION from every package it
can find.
I was thinking of knocking together Test::AnnounceVersion.
use Test::AnnounceVersion qw(A::List Of::Modules);
which results in
# using version 1.5 of A::List
# using version 0.1 of Of::Modules
supplying no import args would make it output $VERSION from every package it
can find.
If you don't w
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 09:25 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> yeah, I'll second this, at least so far as adding a version component to
> Test::More goes (which is different than adding a TAP version, which I don't
> have an opinion on:). Test.pm currently prints out
>
> # Using Test.pm version 1.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:41:17PM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > Err, why? Who else is emitting a version string? Or anything? Do we
> > start prefixing everything else with TAP?
>
> I have intentionally put version strings in the output, especially of
> of related modules. For example, DBD::
> This is helpful for processing bug reports, so I don't have to make
> second trip back to the user to ask: "What version of CGI.pm where you
> using?".
yeah, I'll second this, at least so far as adding a version component to
Test::More goes (which is different than adding a TAP version, which
On 2005-02-18, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:13:05AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> On 2005-02-15, Clayton, Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >ver 1.1
>>
>> If you go this route, I would make it clear whose emitting the version
>> string:
>>
>>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:13:05AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 2005-02-15, Clayton, Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >ver 1.1
>
> If you go this route, I would make it clear whose emitting the version
> string:
>
> TAP version 1.1
Err, why? Who else is emitting a version string
On 2005-02-15, Clayton, Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>ver 1.1
If you go this route, I would make it clear whose emitting the version
string:
TAP version 1.1
###
Mark
--
http://mark.stosberg.com/
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:44:03AM -, Clayton, Nik wrote:
>todo 3 - Todo, using new todo syntax
>
> should it ever be decided that putting 'skip' and 'todo' markers after
> a character that has had at least 25 years of being treated as a comment
> marker is not necessarily a good idea...
> #2 and #3 look similar but act differently. Unfixable by about 16
> years. Fine.
On that thought -- how do people feel about describing a mechanism for
extending TAP now, while there's only one large consumer of it, rather
than later, when there are (hopefully) going to be multiple disparate
u
11 matches
Mail list logo
