On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 07:38:42PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> 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.
There's nothing stopping you from writing:
ok( $obj->isa('Foo'), "whatever the hell I want" );
Or writing your own versions of isa/can_ok so that you, the programmer,
have full control over them.
I, the library designer, write isa_ok() and can_ok() as convenience
functions. Part of this convenience is providing sensible default names
so you don't have to.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
If you got the wax out of your ears you could hear the twister picking up
the trailer park of your future!
