On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> having two places where the test can be told to skip is confusing.
confusing to who? have you forgotten the perl motto?
> So you only want to preserve:
>
> plan tests => $tests, ['lwp', 'cgi'];
and anything else that currently works, like:
plan tests => $tests, \&have_foo;
> i.e. the ref eq ARRAY part in the original implementation of overloaded
> plan().
>
> Otherwise I think I can fit skip_unless as a function that can handle
> *any* requirement. e.g.:
>
> + skip_unless({sub {$a==$b} => "$a != $b!"
> + sub {$a==1} => "$a != 1!"},
> + 'LWP',
> + 'cgi_d',
> + {sub {0} => "forced to be skipped"},
> + );
>
> is that ok?
making skip_unless more robust is fine. but keep in mind, the common case
uses the original shorthand syntax. we only needed to add skip_unless for
rare cases when the skip reason was unknown.
