I was a little puzzled by the first response, but figured, to each their own! Glad to know we are all on the same page.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 4:13 PM Jonas B. Nielsen <jona...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > On 1 Mar 2018, at 15.00, yary <not....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:56 AM, David Cantrell <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'" 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 <jona...@cpan.org> > twitter: @jonasbn > blog: https://lastmover.wordpress.com/ > > > > > >
