Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-13 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:55:29PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > sounds like a plan :) Yuk yuk. > I haven't look at the innards in a while, but do you think the > infrastructure is there in Test::Builder to support this now? the last time > I checked I had to jump through some hoops to get an

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-13 Thread Geoffrey Young
Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > >>well, this syntax doesn't exist in Test::More at the moment (though I >>probably should get around to a patch like I promised) - it's only in >>Apache-Test. > > > For the record, there's no reason wh

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-13 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > well, this syntax doesn't exist in Test::More at the moment (though I > probably should get around to a patch like I promised) - it's only in > Apache-Test. For the record, there's no reason why Test::More has to be the one to decla

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-13 Thread Geoffrey Young
Mark Stosberg wrote: > On 2005-03-13, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion about a feature >>that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More toolkit but was brought up >>because Apache-Test's plan() works a bit differently and t

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-13 Thread Geoffrey Young
Ian Langworth wrote: > On 12.Mar.2005 11:41PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > > >>nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion >>about a feature that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More >>toolkit but was brought up because Apache-Test's plan() works >>a bit differently and t

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-13 Thread Mark Stosberg
On 2005-03-13, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion about a feature > that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More toolkit but was brought up > because Apache-Test's plan() works a bit differently and there are enough > people w

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-12 Thread Ian Langworth
On 12.Mar.2005 11:41PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion > about a feature that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More > toolkit but was brought up because Apache-Test's plan() works > a bit differently and there are enough people who lik

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-12 Thread Geoffrey Young
Ian Langworth wrote: > On 30.Nov.2004 09:57AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote: > > >> plan tests => 14, have( "Foo::Wango" ), moon_phase eq "waning", etc; > > > Where does the reason fit into this syntax? well, this syntax doesn't exist in Test::More at the moment (though I probably should get ar

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2005-03-12 Thread Ian Langworth
On 30.Nov.2004 09:57AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote: >plan tests => 14, have( "Foo::Wango" ), moon_phase eq "waning", etc; Where does the reason fit into this syntax? -- Ian Langworth Project Guerrilla Northeastern University College of Computer and Information Science

Re: [RFC] adding skip option directly to plan()

2004-11-30 Thread Randy W. Sims
Geoffrey Young wrote: Michael G Schwern wrote: On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:44:50AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote: plan tests => 14, if => have( "Foo" ) && moon_phase eq "waning"; The downside here, as Geoff alluded to, is that we don't really want the short circuiting behaviour of &&, since evaluating