On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Maybe im missing something but that report has a comment that says:
>
> The trick is making sure it doesn't export when you say "use Test::Builder".
>
> If Test::Builder itself doesnt have anything in its @EXPORT/@EXPORT_OK
> then why
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 11:19:38AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> If the module
> is intended to be used in conjunction with a GP test module like T::M
> or T::S why should it even care about handling plan semantics at all?
So that it can stand alone with or without Test::More.
> > Something that is p
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:16:25PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
> > suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
> > things like Test::Bu
On 7/3/05, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
> > suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
> > things like Test::Builder::Test
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
> suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
> things like Test::Builder::Tester. Using the TBT approach would have saved
> me from
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another issue I had is that its not particularly clear what the deal
> > is with an import method per package. Why is it necessary to recode
> > (slightly differently everywhere) the import routine? I personally
> > would have found it muc
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:10:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
> > comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
> > issues with the process.
>
> Than
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 10:04:52AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Well, its more what i was trying to do. Just ask yourself "how do a i
> write module that is exactly like Test::More except one of the tests
> has overloaded behaviour?
You don't. I love that answer.
You write your module with its one e
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:10:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
> comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
> issues with the process.
Thank you. I get very little feedback in this regard and appreciate it.
On 7/3/05, Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
> > with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
> > just add an extra method.
>
> I think it would be much more usefull to have
demerphq wrote:
Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
just add an extra method.
I think it would be much more usefull to have your module work with
rather than in place of Test::More. I can't
On 7/3/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:10 +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > Anyway, maybe ive gotten this all muddled and these arent issues
> > people should worry about for some good reason or another.
>
> I certainly have a fuzzy idea of what you've done to run i
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:10 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Anyway, maybe ive gotten this all muddled and these arent issues
> people should worry about for some good reason or another.
I certainly have a fuzzy idea of what you've done to run into these
problems. Can you post your code somewhere for re
13 matches
Mail list logo
