* 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/>