On Dec 15, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> Ok, so that's a bit off the topic of "why use isa_ok()" but I just don't
> see why people seem to object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
> tests. I can't see how it couldn't help improve the quality of the tests
> while providing a standardized way to do the things that all the tests do
> anyway.
I, for one, don't object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
tests. I'm just being responsibly skeptical about the promotion of many
different test harness modules with many different functions. It runs
the risk of _seeming_ like the People in Charge don't know what testing
is for, and of not providing effective guidance to those people writing
their first tests.
I also think that we have a real testing problem, which is that it
isn't _trivially_ easy to run a huge test suite (like Alzabo's, or Perl's)
and to find out at the end which tests failed and what their output was.
3000 lines and 20 minutes later, a message that 3 out of 10000 tests
failed is not maximally useful. Greater variety of test functions is not
(IMNSHO) nearly as important as addressing that.
And I only chimed in here to point out that one can use isa() on undef,
which Schwern claimed couldn't be done.
- Kurt
P.S. Schwern, not to deter you from doing what's important to you. I
know that patches are welcome. YMMV.
