On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:47:31PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> Andy Lester wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 11:33:48AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>> plan tests => 14, have( "Foo::Wango" ), moon_phase eq "waning",
> >>>etc;
> >
> >
> >All this means is that all the following conditions have to be true.
> >HOW those get evaluated is left to the future. We're not locked into
> >anything.
> >
> > plan tests => 14, have( "Foo" ), moon_phase eq "waning";
> >
> >would be the same as
> >
> > if ( have("Foo") && moon_phase eq "waning" ) ) {
> > plan tests => 14;
> > }
>
> plan tests => 14, if => have( "Foo" ) && moon_phase eq "waning";
The downside here, as Geoff alluded to, is that we don't really want the
short circuiting behaviour of &&, since evaluating the operands may give
useful information as to why the tests are being skipped.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
