Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:10:08AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
Anything other than 'got' would go some of the way in disambiguating things.
I forget now what the proposed alternatives were.
If I were starting from scratch, I probably would use 'returned' since
it
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:10:08AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> Anything other than 'got' would go some of the way in disambiguating things.
I forget now what the proposed alternatives were.
> I'd write a patch if I thought it had a chance of being applied, that
> would let the developer choo
Ian Langworth wrote:
On 5/13/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what I *really* think about Perl's test reporting is that the results
are shown in the wrong order, and that it would also be better to use a
less ambiguous word than 'got'. 'actual' would be nice.
I like the word
On 5/13/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what I *really* think about Perl's test reporting is that the results
> are shown in the wrong order, and that it would also be better to use a
> less ambiguous word than 'got'. 'actual' would be nice.
I like the word "actual" much better
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:57:45PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> I also understand that I'm no doubt in a minority of one on this issue,
> and that everyone else's brain is wired the other way, and that in any
> event, even if my argument has some merit, it is far too late in the
> game to do a
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 17:57 +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> So what I *really* think about Perl's test reporting is that the results
> are shown in the wrong order, and that it would also be better to use a
> less ambiguous word than 'got'. 'actual' would be nice.
> # Failed test "this is a re
Michael G Schwern wrote:
[...]
This is what I morphed it into.
/Users/schwern/tmp/duringNOK 1
# Failed test (/Users/schwern/tmp/during.t at line 5)
# got: '23'
# expected: '42'
/Users/schwern/tmp/duringNOK 2
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:50:09PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Also, amidst all this, I'm looking at a way to do "verbose but only on
> tests that are errors" mode for Test::Harness and prove.
I'm not sure quite how well it fits with this, but I'd be really pleased
if you were able to add a "stop
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 06:45:12PM -0400, Randy W. Sims ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >Ryan King finally submitted to me a full patch to add the description to
> >Test::Builder diagnostic output. Unfortunately I'm not hot on his
> >formatting, however it has finally kicked my ass into examining t
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 06:45:12PM -0400, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> It's worded as if the description were a name rather than a description.
No matter what TAP wants to call it, its just more information associated
with the test. This might be a name, a description, an explaination,
diagnostic inf
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Ryan King finally submitted to me a full patch to add the description to
Test::Builder diagnostic output. Unfortunately I'm not hot on his
formatting, however it has finally kicked my ass into examining the problem.
Just to refresh everyone, this is what the output of
#!
11 matches
Mail list logo
