First, I appreciate the dissenting opinion, I was looking particularly for the proverbial "other ways to do it."
I suspect that the experence difference between you and I is the main point here: your method works best for you because you have the skill to avoid the pitfalls. Were I to design something in that way, I'm sure that I'd miss an assertion or return check somewhere, or the coverage wouldn't be complete in some other way. The Test::* method allows me to have all my tests in the same place, where gaps are obvious. The extra work initially has a big payoff downstream when I'm hunting bugs.
In reply to Re^2: Does anybody write tests first?
by amarquis
in thread Does anybody write tests first?
by amarquis
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |