On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:37:04PM -0400, Joe McMahon wrote:
> I took the printf(), added an sprintf() and another conditional
> operator, and got the following:
>
> my $test = 1;
> sub ok {
> my($ok, $name) = @_;
>
> printf "%sok %d - %s%s\n", $ok ? "" : "not ", $test, $name,
> ($ok ? "" : sprintf("\t# Failed test at line %d\n",
> (caller)[2]));
This statement makes my eyes bleed. You don't have to shove them
together like that. And the "# Failed" should be on a seperate line.
printf "%sok %d - %s\n", ($ok ? "" : "not "), $test, $name;
printf "# Failed test at line %d\n", (caller)[2] unless $ok;
> Also, there were a couple of places where the test was for a
> "Modification of a read-only value attempted at ..." message, so I added
> a couple of eval{} blocks and tested $@ in those cases.
Good good.
> I think that covers the bases for concat.t now. Full patch attached.
Ok. I'll repatch with the sensible ok() and send this one onto p5p.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
Death follows me like a wee followey thing.
-- Quakeman
