I like that idea of adopting all of T::M. However, does T::M have a comparable function to t_cmp that gives the expected and received values? I *really* like the verbose output that t_cmp gives!
is() is similar in many ways to t_cmp() except it doesn't support array comparisons, regular expressions, and some of the other things t_cmp() does. but Test::More has stuff like like(), is_deeply(), and unlike() (which has no Apache-Test equivalent). Test::More is a bit different in that you only get the expected/received messages when things fail IIRC.
that said, integrating Apache-Test with Test::More is a bit difficult - you get all kinds of redefined sub warnings because both Apache::Test and Test::More export plan() and ok() into the test's namespace. I originally thought that I could create a simple Apache::TestMore class that merely exported all the right stuff, but it ends up being a bit more complex than that. so, it's on my todo list at the moment but I just haven't had the time. if someone beats me to it, great :)
The main problem is the dependency which we we don't want to create in Apache-Test. Though nothing prevents from you, William, to use T::M in your test suite. Apache::TestUtil simply is a smaller T::M-like library, but you don't have to use it.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
