On 2011.10.28 12:23 AM, Ovid wrote:
Echo chamber alert: I've often seen long discussions on this list ignore
the real world (though often for good reason). In this case, it sounds
like there's a consideration of removing a feature from TAP.
No, not removing from TAP but removing support for
On 2011.10.28 6:52 AM, David Golden wrote:
Without looking at the actual code, I would guess that the complexity
is implementing subtests while preserving the legacy procedural
interface that wraps calls to a global singleton.
No, that's not really the problem. It was when Ovid originally
Hey,
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
[snip]
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate test state (as currently implemented)
This may be me being dim - but I'm not really groking the distinction
On 29 October 2011 18:20, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
[snip]
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate
On 30 October 2011 00:34, Ovid publiustemp-perl...@yahoo.com wrote:
Should have been sent to the list, not just Fergal.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog -
- Original Message -
From: chromatic chroma...@wgz.org
To: perl-qa@perl.org
Cc: Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 9:36
Subject: Re: Event handling: One method per event or one method for all?
On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 09:58 PM, Michael G
On 2011.10.29 3:51 AM, Fergal Daly wrote:
It seems like it's impossible then to declare a global plan in advance
if you use subtests unless you go counting all the sub tests which is
no fun,
Yes, that's a very good point.
use Test::More tests = 3;
subtest first = sub { ... };
