Huh? Just must have been drunk or something,
I mean to say, I can ONLY agree with this approach. Sorry for any confusion and thanks for not roasting me :-) Have a nice weekend, jonasbn > On 1 Mar 2018, at 17.36, Jonas B. Nielsen <jona...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I cannot agree with this approach, but sometimes a single file is the easiest > to distribute. > > Currently I am looking at App::Fatpacker - > https://metacpan.org/pod/App::FatPacker > <https://metacpan.org/pod/App::FatPacker> > >> On 1 Mar 2018, at 15.00, yary <not....@gmail.com <mailto:not....@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:56 AM, David Cantrell <da...@cantrell.org.uk >> <mailto:da...@cantrell.org.uk>> wrote: >> >> My approach is to have the script be mostly a wrapper around more >> easily-testable modules - the script just wrangles arguments and shows >> results. >> >> +1 for that approach in general. Makes it easy to call the "useful" code in >> the script in other places. >> >> Something to do in small scripts which don't aren't module material, is to >> put all the "useful" code into subs, put the command-line processing & >> printing into a "sub MAIN", and then have only this top-level statement: >> >> exit MAIN unless caller; >> >> That lets the script be called normally, executing when run from the command >> line. On the other hand, another perl program can "require 'the_code_file.pl >> <http://the_code_file.pl/>'" and load all the subs without anything >> executing- so your test code can call MAIN after setting @ARGV to whatever >> it wants - or can test the other subs as needed. >> > — pauseid: JONASBN email: jona...@cpan.org twitter: @jonasbn blog: https://lastmover.wordpress.com/ <https://lastmover.wordpress.com/>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
