Re: Test::Builder change BAILOUT - BAIL_OUT
On 3 May 2005, at 23:36, Michael G Schwern wrote: Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.61 will introduce a change to Test::Builder whereby the BAILOUT() method becomes BAIL_OUT(). Additionally Test::More finally features a BAIL_OUT() function. [snip] Just out of curiosity - any particular reason for the change? Adrian
Re: Test::Builder change BAILOUT - BAIL_OUT
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:24:34PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.61 will introduce a change to Test::Builder whereby the BAILOUT() method becomes BAIL_OUT(). Additionally Test::More finally features a BAIL_OUT() function. [snip] Just out of curiosity - any particular reason for the change? Everything else in Test::Builder is this_style not thisstyle. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Phillip K. Dick
Re: Test::Builder change BAILOUT - BAIL_OUT
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 15:36 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.61 will introduce a change to Test::Builder whereby the BAILOUT() method becomes BAIL_OUT(). Additionally Test::More finally features a BAIL_OUT() function. Using cpansearch [1] I've determined that you all are the only current users of BAILOUT() on CPAN. Ponie, Parrot, Test::Class and XUL::Node. Parrot bundles Test::Builder 0.11 (from Test-Simple 0.41). Is it worth upgrading? -- c
Re: Test::Builder change BAILOUT - BAIL_OUT
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:23:01PM -0700, chromatic wrote: Parrot bundles Test::Builder 0.11 (from Test-Simple 0.41). Is it worth upgrading? Couldn't hurt. A whole mess of is_deeply() bugs have been fixed since 0.41. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern ROCKS FALL! EVERYONE DIES! http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml
