use Perl

• Strange (Score:1)

  by William G. Davis (4412)

  Back [perl.org] to back [perl.org] entries on C implementations [perl.org] of Test::Harness. Odd, huh? ;)
  • Re:Strange (Score:1)

    by nik (3476)

    We've done slightly different things. My code still expects the tests to run by something like Test::Harness' runtests(), and produces output that is (supposed to be) 100% compatible with that produced by Test::More under the same circumstances.

    My take on this is that we really only need one 'harness' and protocol, and Test::Harness/TAP does a good job of being that. But there's no reason why the tests themselves have to be written in Perl, which is where libtap comes in, making it a little easier to wr
    • TAP in PHP (Score:2)

      by geoff (2013)

      see the end of this file [apache.org] for a PHP implementation.
• comments on plan... (Score:1)

  by rooneg (3732)

  Why have three separate plan functions?

  I would have thought you'd just do a single 'plan' function, which takes an integer as its first arg and then varargs after that.

  Define constants like NO_PLAN and SKIP_ALL as negative numbers, a positive number for the first arg corresponds to the current plan_tests, NO_PLAN as the first arg corresponds to plan_no_plan, SKIP_ALL corresponds to plan_skip_all, and you grab the string from the varargs to get the equivalent of the current plan_skip_all's argument.
  • Re:comments on plan... (Score:1)

    by nik (3476)

    Why have three separate plan functions?

    Rough consensus on #london.pm -- originally the code did much as you suggest (although it looks like I didn't commit that, there's a hangover from it in one of the test files [ngo.org.uk]).
    • Re:comments on plan... (Score:1)

      by rooneg (3732)

      Interesting. I like the old way much better, the multiple different plan functions seems like it makes the C version different from the perl version when there's no good reason to do so.