On 2011.11.6 5:20 AM, James E Keenan wrote:
You're absolutely correct that it has no docs. Some of this is to avoid
using
the inline POD feature, in case it breaks while developing the core. But it
could be documented either in comments, or POD in an __END__ block, or (the
safest) in a
In a github issue (https://github.com/schwern/test-more/issues/73),
Michael Schwern argued that Test::Builder2 ought to be tested with a
completely unrelated test system. We have one, t/test.pl from the Perl
core.
I thought to myself, How difficult could that be? I vaguely
remembered
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 1:23 PM, James E Keenan jk...@verizon.net wrote:
In a github issue (https://github.com/schwern/test-more/issues/73), Michael
Schwern argued that Test::Builder2 ought to be tested with a completely
unrelated test system. We have one, t/test.pl from the Perl core.
I
On 2011.11.5 5:23 AM, James E Keenan wrote:
Does anyone actually use t/test.pl? What does it do? What is it for?
test.pl has the classic meaning of pl meaning Perl Library not the
bastardized Perl Executable. It's a simpler, parallel alternative to
Test::More written using simpler Perl
