--- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [*0] Talking of which, I'm another vote on the no-here-docs side.
> Which is looking to be the unanimous preference of folks who've
> answered on this list -- obviously whichever of Schwern or Ovid
> came
> up with the here-doc syntax has got very p
* jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-30 01:30]:
> On 9/29/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >got: this is line 1
> > this is line 2
> > this is line 3
> >expected: this is line 1
> > this is line b
> > this is line 3
>
> i pr
On Saturday 30 September 2006 01:16, Alexandr Ciornii wrote:
> Hello!
>
> For a long time I'm using Test::Reporter. Now I participate in Vanilla
> Perl project (http://win32.perl.org). I've started CPAN smoke.
>
> I've come to several ideas regarding cpantesters. I want your opinion on
> them.
>
>
Fergal Daly writes:
> didn't we have this debate before?
Yes.
What's more at the start of this thread Ovid specifically said:
There are all sorts of little details there, but basically,
got/expected (or whatever names are settled on) are to be free-form
text. The main question is whether
didn't we have this debate before?
F
On 01/10/06, jason gessner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
or 'received' instead of 'got'.
Andy pointing out tap's use of 'got' makes me think prove should end
like:
1/9 tests ain't right.
Test no good. damn.
:)
-jason
On Oct 1, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Andy Lest
