* Ovid <publiustemp-perl...@yahoo.com> [2010-10-17 16:25]:
> >Modules are poor place for evangelism about unrelated
> >conventions in general, but I feel this especially strongly
> >about Test:: modules with break-the-CPAN level adoption such
> >as Test::Deep.
>
> That arguments you made are compelling, so I need to ask your
> point of view about this:
>
>    #!/usr/bin/env perl
>    use Test::Most
>
>    ok 1, '1 is true';
>
> "use Test::Most tests => 42" is loosely equivalent to:
>
>    use strict;
>    use warnings;
>    use Test::Exception 0.88;
>    use Test::Differences 0.500;
>    use Test::Deep 0.106;
>    use Test::Warn 0.11;
>    use Test::More tests => 42;
>
> Test::Most, like Test::Class::Most, not only imports the most
> common testing functions, but also imports strict and warnings
> for you.  I didn't do this lightly. I did this because I see
> a lot of test suites forgetting one or the other and in the
> case of test suites, it's terribly important to not miss those
> because they stop so many errors (for example, many warnings
> are actually symptoms of underlying bugs and that's what a test
> suite is about, right?).
>
> So did I do the wrong thing here?  I'd love to hear pro and con
> arguments.

That looks fine to me. The primary purpose of Test::Most is to
cut down on typing. Enabling strictures and warnings for the user
fits right into its mission. More importantly,

    use strict;
    use warnings;

is hardly an experimental interface unproven by practice. :-)
Whereas new approaches to namespaces very definitely are.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

Reply via email to