On 7/31/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is not a functional failure; it has nothing to do with whether the *code* > will behave correctly on a user's system.
That's not the question you posed. You asked why POD would "behave differently". Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. I *agree* with you that Pod and Pod coverage testing should die -- and have held that view for a long time. So instead of contributing to more pedantry, here's my summation of potential practical steps: * CPANTS -- eliminating or penalizing Kwalitee for pod/pod-coverage tests would seem to be up to Thomas Klausner; I don't think I've seen him weigh in on this recently. So people need to lobby him or fork the project. * Module::Starter -- Andy wants these tests run by default and he doesn't seem to be swayed; So people need to fork this and start advocating for an alternative. Ditto other module generators. (And mea culpa for my own.) * Alternatives -- Eric Wilhelm suggests putting these tests in at/ and running them with prove. Likewise, Module::Build and ExtUtils::MakeMaker could have targets added that run tests in an "at/" directory as another way to encourage the practice. (Module authors who want such targets can upgrade without ever affecting end-users) Lobby Ken Williams and Schwern. * Advocacy -- As alternatives are developed, people should start writing articles for perl.com, Perl Monks and should start giving local .pm group talks, etc. demonstrating and advocating those approaches. Regards, David
