Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Perl will have to compile all the test routines all the time. This
> both slows startup and eats memory. This pretty much kills the
> proposal. :(
Yup. Brain fart withdrawn.
> I don't see how the "sub TEST" thing improves except to keep POD pure
> documentation. '=for testing' works just fine for this. As does
> '=begin testing/=end testing'. (You're right about '=test', so we
> might want to drop that.)
> Writing out a whole subroutine for each test is too much work.
<horse status="dead" action="beat">Typing "sub TEST_foo {" seems
like same amount of work as typing "=for testing", to me.</>
> I really want these to be tests on the order of a line or three. I'd
> like code authors to simply toss them in on a whim, similar to an
> assert(). Larger tests can be accomidatd with '=begin/=end testing'
> and also the traditional .t files.
Definitely. I want a scalable solution.
BTW, I was stunned to see your example testing and embedded testing
stuff. I've been *this* close to doing my own in-house variants
for awhile now. I've had to cut & paste example code in to test
suites and eg/ directories too often. And then paste them back
when the inevitable bugs occur. Ugh.
- Barrie
