On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:32:48AM -0500, Stevan Little wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Nathan Gray wrote: > >Is there a place for Test.pm from perl5 in the perl6 world? That's the > >one I want to use. > > You are certainly free to write it, and I think it would be a great > exercise in multi-subs to do so. However the name Test.pm has already > been taken. But I would encourage you to look more closely at both > perl5 Test::More and the perl6 Test.pm as I really and truely feel they > are superior to perl5 Test.pm. But then again, this is perl, so there > is certainly more than one way to do it, and you are free to do so. > > As for contributing to the Pugs tests, I personally would prefer though > that you stick with the perl6 Test.pm model as we already have over > 1500 tests which use it. But in the end, this is Autrijus's descision > and not mine.
It was frustrating when Test::Simple/More was not part of the standard perl5 distribution, and modules were using it to test, because then I had to go fetch another module, even when there wasn't really a dependency. For that reason, I'd rather not make an alternate test module. I can try using the subroutines that are provided right now, which brings me to the point of this post originally: I have seen systems which log test output (test description, type of failure, expected value, actual value) to a file. I find this type of logging very useful. I was trying to implement something like that, but I kept getting errors. I have, however, overcome the sand pit (no 'elsif' yet), and have a patch that will allow logging to a file. -kolibrie
