On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I find
>
>isnt($foo, undef);
>
> useful as it gives better failure diagnostics than
>
>ok(defined $foo);
>
Wouldn't it be better to write this
is_defined($foo);
Which, on failure would print
# got: undef
# expect
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:57:45PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > I find
> >
> >isnt($foo, undef);
> >
> > useful as it gives better failure diagnostics than
> >
> >ok(defined $foo);
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be better to write this
>
>
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:57:45PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>> I find
>>>
>>>isnt($foo, undef);
>>>
>>> useful as it gives better failure diagnostics than
>>>
>>>ok(defined $foo);
>>>
>> Wouldn't it be bett
I strongly encourage folks who want to work on Test::More to fork the project
on github and issue pull requests instead of mailing in patches. Why? Github
gives me a lovely view of the work going on in the Test::More forks.
http://github.com/schwern/test-more/forkqueue
This means I can never dro
