Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65527 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2004 18:40:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Nov 2004 18:40:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 8022 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2004 18:40:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 7992 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2004 18:40:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list test-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 7974 invoked by uid 99); 30 Nov 2004 18:40:16 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of apache-test@chrislaco.com designates 65.42.59.33 as permitted sender) Received: from adsl-65-42-59-33.dsl.akrnoh.ameritech.net (HELO mail.icantfocus.com) (65.42.59.33) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:40:15 -0800 Received: from [191.2.3.14] (mail2.summitracing.com [208.44.49.7]) by mail.icantfocus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9225A23503 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:37:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41ACBE8B.2000209@chrislaco.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:40:11 -0500 From: "Christopher H. Laco" Reply-To: apache-test@chrislaco.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Pickyness question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Just because I'm like that. :-) I noticed in A-T/t/redirect.t we have: plan tests => 6, need_module('mod_alias.c') && &need_lwp; Of course, I noticed this after skimming over the A-T pod again , where it mentions: It's also important to mention to avoid using: plan tests => 1, requirement1 && requirement2; For that matter, sometimes I see: plan tests -> 1, need_lwp; plan tests -> 1, &need_lwp; plan tests -> 1, \&need_lwp; From a pure A-T coding standpoint, which is preferred? -=Chris