* Ovid <[email protected]> [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/>
