Re: lib.t (was Re: Untested modules update: There's more than we thought)

2001-12-16 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 07:30:37PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > I just thought of a better way. Since all we're testing is that > > lib.pm does the right things to @INC, we can presume that if one of > > require(), do() or use() works, the rest will work. > > Can't we just test what @INC now

lib.t (was Re: Untested modules update: There's more than we thought)

2001-12-14 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > #how about use's? > > is( > > `perl "-Mlib=stuff -MYup" -e "print 'ok'"`, > > 'ok', > > 'affects use' > > ); > > A simple way to trick 'use' is to clear the entry from %INC and then > eval "use Yup". I just though