On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:46 PM, David Golden<xda...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ovid<publiustemp-perl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Also, I think playing around with more fluent interfaces is a good idea. If >> my interface is great, why not? If it's bad, what would people *love* to >> see in a test interface which allows them to naturally write tests? > > Well, if you're doing interface design, one of the first things that > comes to mind is that the name of the test should come first, not > last. > > I've often taken to writing tests like this: > > is( $have, $want > "label goes here" > ); >
how about fn_label_goes_here_is ($have, $want, "maybe a supplememtary msg") with AUTOLOAD catching it, recognize the _is suffix, convert the fn-label-goes-here into a more readable message. + suffix carries exactly current meaning (no grey area) + test label and implementing function are ALWAYS clearly associated. (no more counting $i++'s) + name prefix can be guaranteed unique (by erroring on reused prefixes) or encouraged (with warning) or tacitly done (with _N_ infix) or some more subtle combo - limited mostly by need for a clear description. - AUTOLOAD is its own kind of ugliness.. - dont really want such an enormous dependence on a not-quite-basic feature.
