On 21 Aug 2008, at 19:02, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 06:55, Thomas Klausner wrote:
unexpected consequences. It also highlights the issue of
Test::Harness's long-standing practice of stripping the .t extension
from filenames. Why? If we want other extensions, stripping them is
On Aug 21, 2008, at 06:55, Thomas Klausner wrote:
unexpected consequences. It also highlights the issue of
Test::Harness's long-standing practice of stripping the .t extension
from filenames. Why? If we want other extensions, stripping them is
probably bad.
FYI, when I run both .t Perl and .s
On Aug 21, 2008, at 08:06, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:09:32AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
I've got one at home now that also has .rb files...
Why .phpt instead of .php?
Why not .t for every language?
Because that's how the harness knows what program to execute: P
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-21T05:36:11]
> Both of us found this much cleaner. However, this might have unexpected
> consequences. It also highlights the issue of Test::Harness's long-standing
> practice of stripping the .t extension from filenames. Why? If we want other
> extensions, strip
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:09:32AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> I've got one at home now that also has .rb files...
>
> Why .phpt instead of .php?
Why not .t for every language?
I have a suspicion that I will like the dot change but not the .t
change.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED
Andy Lester wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2008, at 4:36 AM, Ovid wrote:
>
>> Why? If we want other extensions, stripping them is probably bad.
>
>
> We definitely want other extensions. I have a pending project that
> relies on running .t and .phpt next to each other.
>
> xoa
I've got one at home n
On Aug 21, 2008, at 4:36 AM, Ovid wrote:
Why? If we want other extensions, stripping them is probably bad.
We definitely want other extensions. I have a pending project that
relies on running .t and .phpt next to each other.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com
On 21 Aug 2008, at 14:55, Thomas Klausner wrote:
unexpected consequences. It also highlights the issue of
Test::Harness's long-standing practice of stripping the .t extension
from filenames. Why? If we want other extensions, stripping them is
probably bad.
Actually, I'd love to have the extensi
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 02:36:11AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> unexpected consequences. It also highlights the issue of
> Test::Harness's long-standing practice of stripping the .t extension
> from filenames. Why? If we want other extensions, stripping them is
> probably bad.
Actually, I'd love
On 21 Aug 2008, at 10:36, Ovid wrote:
You'll see this:
t/proverun ok
t/regression .. ok
t/results . ok
t/scheduler ... ok
t/source .. ok
t/spool ... ok
t/state ..
I've just committed a minor change that both Andy and I have wanted for a long
time, but I do wonder if it will impact others. Instead of seeing this:
t/proverun..ok
t/regressionok
t/results...ok
t/scheduler..
11 matches
Mail list logo
