On Tuesday 30 June 2009 21:44:50 Michael Peters wrote:
> Ovid wrote:
> > use Test::Fluent 'no_plan';
> >
> > my ( $have, $want ) = ( 1, 1 );
> > have $have, want $want, reason 'Some test name';
> > have [ 3, 4 ], want [ 4, 5 ], reason 'cuz I said so'; # fails
> > true 3, reason '3 had better be true';
> > false 3, reason '3 had better still better be true'; # fails
>
> I would much rather see something like
>
> cmp_ok(
> have => 1,
> want => 2,
> reason => 'Some test name',
> diagnostic => { world => $world },
> );
>
> Much more Perlish. I've always disliked some APIs where it's not
> immediately clear what's a function call and what's an argument to that
> function: is reason() an argument to want() or have()?. It also seems more
> obvious for doing things like data-driven tests where you just have a large
> data structure that tests are run against.
I tend to agree with this. However, for my subroutines, I prefer to pass named
arguments in a hash-ref, instead of clobbered into @_. So "mysub({%args})",
and "my $args = shift;" rather than "mysub(%args)" and "my %args = shift;".
In any case, in my opinion, your proposal for syntax is saner than Ovid's
proposed DSL.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html
God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we
read.
