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.