* Ovid <publiustemp-perl...@yahoo.com> [2012-04-11 19:10]: > * Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> [2012-04-11 18:55]: > > I don’t see how it is any more magic than `done_testing`. > > Because done_testing is applicable to every test module and solves the > far more common issue of hating maintain a plan. I would argue that > done_testing is much more necessary than an AutoBailout.
Well sure, which is why I suggested a separate module and not a patch to Test::More itself. (Also since it is doable separately with such a clean implementation.) > That being said, I'd use AutoBailout a lot more often if it was > available. Then again, as Schwern pointed out, that's why I wrote > Test::Most :) I guess I should go and put AutoBailout on CPAN. :-) > > What I don’t like about duplicating `use` is that you need to diddle > > internals and ... > > I think Schwern's not arguing against this. He's just trying to figure > out the best way forward. Yes, that was not an argument, just stating my position on it in line with my question about his unease. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
