Just because I'm like that. :-) I noticed in A-T/t/redirect.t we have:
plan tests => 6, need_module('mod_alias.c') && &need_lwp;
Of course, I noticed this after skimming over the A-T pod again , where it mentions:
It's also important to mention to avoid using: plan tests => 1, requirement1 && requirement2;
Yes, it's wrong, I will fix that. The doc is correct.
For that matter, sometimes I see:
1) plan tests => 1, need_lwp; 2) plan tests => 1, &need_lwp; 3) plan tests => 1, \&need_lwp;
From a pure A-T coding standpoint, which is preferred?
That's a totally different issue. Either 1 and 3 will work. since if it gets a CODE ref it'll run it.
2 will also work but it's not the best way to call a function which accepts not args, since when you call &foo, @_ is passed to it (see perlsub.pod)
&NAME; # Makes current @_ visible to called subroutine.
so if it has an empty prototype, that would be an error.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
