From: Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>
Date: 2003-12-11T14:33:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Ideas for replacing $0==__FILE__

Austin Ziegler wrote:

>>I like that--in fact, I'd probably use it.  What happens if there are
>>multiple TEST{} blocks (especially in required files)?  Do they all get
>>executed?
>>    
>>
>
>I would suggest yes. Perhaps -t and -tr (e.g., -t only runs the last; -tr 
>runs all). What was brought up on #ruby-lang is whether the TEST {} blocks 
>would be exclusive, overriding normal behaviour. This may be desirable.
>  
>

Exclusive, meaning regular code (ie, code outside of TEST{}) would not 
run?  I don't know if I like that.  If that's what is needed, then it 
sounds like what is really needed is better separation of real and test 
code.

I can see the value of TEST{}.  But if you need something that only gets 
run during testing, and excludes the real application code... I don't 
know if such a language construct belongs in Ruby.  Seems too specific 
to me.

On a slightly related, albeit more general, note: what if there were a 
mechanism whereby the invoked script could handle options that were 
passed to the Ruby interpreter, and which the interpreter didn't 
understand?  That is to say, instead of making -t and -tr actual flags 
in the interpreter, what if it were possible to make them accessible to 
(for instance) a module that the script 'requires'?  Then the script 
could set a $TEST flag, define the behavior of the TEST method, and have 
all TEST{} blocks be executed when the script is run, as long as -t was 
passed to the interpreter.

Perhaps it's just too late and I need to go to bed.

-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3@email.byu.edu

ruby -h | ruby -e 'a=[];readlines.join.scan(/-(.)\[e|Kk(\S*)|le.l(..)e|#!(\S*)/) {|r| a << r.compact.first };puts "\n>#{a.join(%q/ /)}<\n\n"'