--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I say leave it up to the individual *_ok sub. use_ok() already
> supplies
> the name itself, and all of my Test::* modules create their own test
> name if there's not one passed.
That's actually one of my pet peeves when writing tests.
ok(...); # no test name provided, but you can provide one
isa_ok(...); # you can provide a test name, but it can look silly
# what's automatically appended to it.
can_ok(...); # you can't provide a test name at all!
These are minor nits, but they're nits just the same. My thought is
that test names are for me, the programmer, and not the computer. Thus
I, the programmer, should have full control over them to suit my
needs/standards/etc. I have a very specific format that I like my test
output to be in and taking away this control blows my format.
I suppose I should eventually do something about that, but I guess it
doesn't annoy me enough to find a patch laying around somewhere.
Cheers,
Ovid -- whose waiting for someone to say, "you must not have read
perldoc $foo" :)
=====
Silence is Evil http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/philosophy/indexdecency.htm
Ovid http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=17000
Web Programming with Perl http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
