On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: > On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Tony Bowden wrote: > > >> Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of > >> testing > > > >Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I > >don't really understand why people might prefer it. Especially here > >where there's such a natural way to specify them, and you're only > >counting them per method, rather than over the entire test. > > I have to agree with Tony. I think it's important to explicitly > indicate the number of tests that a given method runs, and to be > explicit about saying when you're not sure how many tests there will > be. In that regard, I like the current design better, although I would > have no complaint if you decided to change the string "no_plan" to > something else.
Me too. In that I'd not like "no plan" to be the default. I'd like it to be necessary to explicitly choose no plan. I'm not sure if it is helpful (or even a good interface) but it's possible to count the number of arguments in @_, and thereby distinguish between no arguments and 1 undef argument. It's just that saying "pass a literal undef for no plan" is about as clear as "no_plan". Empty string is probably clearer, and quite easy to test for (with length, after a defined || croak test) Nicholas Clark -- Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
