On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It's a convenience function so it can be more easily understood what's going
> on and we don't each write it a million different ways. require_ok() solves a
> big chunk of the problem.
>
> if( something something ) {
> use_ok 'Foo';
So in these cases, we're using it basically as an eval block, because a simple
"use Foo" would be bad.
What it sounds to me like is: "If all you're testing is that the module loads,
and it must always, then simply do a use and do without the use_ok()".
In this example:
BEGIN {
use_ok( 'App::Ack' );
use_ok( 'App::Ack::Repository' );
use_ok( 'App::Ack::Resource' );
use_ok( 'File::Next' );
}
diag( "Testing App::Ack $App::Ack::VERSION, File::Next $File::Next::VERSION,
Perl $], $^X" );
it sounds like we're saying that the use_ok() doesn't help at all, and I might
as well write
use App::Ack;
use App::Ack::Repository;
use App::Ack::Resource;
use File::Next;
diag( "Testing App::Ack $App::Ack::VERSION, File::Next $File::Next::VERSION,
Perl $], $^X" );
Agreed?
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [email protected] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
