Is anyone going to develop this, or is all of this just wishfull/theorhetical thinking? If someone will develop this are we going to add it to Test::More or create a module wrapped around Test::More with the added functionality?
Toodles, ~~Andrew (Chrom sorry about the repeat....forgot to use the "Reply-All" option) > -----Original Message----- > From: chromatic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:24 PM > To: Potozniak, Andrew > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: thinking about variable context for like() > > > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 06:54, Potozniak, Andrew wrote: > > > What's stopping you from creating this global var > > and passing it in to the function whenever it is called? > > Good taste. If it's going to be more convenient than > Test::More's like(), go all the way and make it more convenient. > > > Or you could make the function "smart" enough as to if > there isn't a > > max_chars_to_output param it looks for a certain "global > config var" > > and if that's undefined it acts just like Test::More::like. > > Sure, either of those are fine. I can't imagine saying "I > want a hundred characters in this test but a hundred and > three in the next test" very often. > > I can imagine saying "I want a hundred characters in every > test, except for this test over here -- but I'll mark that as > a special exception right where it needs to be marked". > > Oh, and putting the length variable before the test name > feels wrong, too. > > Here's a wacky idea: in void context, like() behaves as > normal (barring any default limits). In scalar context: > > like( $var, $regex, $name ) or diag( "No regex match!" ); > > set two variables of the appropriate length? > > I'm not sure I like it better, but it's an idea. > > -- c >
