* 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/