[Pdx-pm] Test::Builder calling convention
David E. Wheeler
david at kineticode.com
Fri Mar 13 14:00:57 PDT 2009
On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> My thought is for ok() to store the real result object in history
> and return a
> thin wrapper object that does nothing but delegates everything to
> the result.
> Then when it gets destroyed it can tell the real result object to
+1, sounds smart.
> In the end, I really like the flexibility the object chaining
> gives. Its
> going to make it very easy to add new methods. I don't like the
> and magic of determining when the result should output and would
> like to see
> and good ideas on that.
Can you cite an example of what you dislike here, so we can sink our
teeth into something?
> As always, +1 and -1s appreciated.
More information about the Pdx-pm-list