David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:59 PM, David Golden wrote:
>
>> As long as we're bike-shedding, a simplification:
>>
>> subtest {
>> plan "sanity check" => 3;
>> pass for 1 .. 3;
>> }
>>
>> Anything other than "no_plan" or "skip_all" is taken as if "tests".
>
> I thought of that and dismissed it, but seeing it in print…gets my vote!
Too bad we'll never be able to add a new keyword to plan() ever again.
Ovid wrote:
> In any event, I'm completely mystified why anyone has a problem with
> the "subtest $name, sub { ...}" syntax. Honestly :)
So why are people so bothered by it? Is it mostly about not wanting "sub" in
there?
--
Defender of Lexical Encapsulation
