From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2003-12-11T12:34:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Ideas for replacing $0==__FILE__

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:21:37 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
> Hal Fulton (hal9000@hypermetrics.com) wrote:
>>> We also discussed on IRC having a "-t" flag to the ruby interpreter
>>> that would run a TEST block (like BEGIN or END or at_exit), but
>>> __TEST__ seems even better than that.
>> Are we talking about the same thing? In my scheme, if foo.rb had a
>> __TEST___ section, it would be run simply by ruby foo.rb (and not run
>> if foo.rb was require'd).
> This is different than your use.

>> How does that relate to the -t idea (which I don' quite get)?
> If you add -t to the ruby interpreter (ruby -t foo.rb) then __TEST__ get
> run when ruby exits.  ($TEST would also be set like -d sets $DEBUG).

Hm. I'm not sure I like that. Why not:

TEST {
  ...
}

The block is only run with ruby -t ...; otherwise it works just like BEGIN 
{} and END {} blocks.

-austin
--
austin ziegler    * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.12.10
                                         * 22.33.01