Jerry D. Hedden wrote: > If the functionality in test.pl (that does not currently > exist in other module) could be duplicated elsewhere using a > Test::Builder-based module, would there be a reason then to > maintain test.pl? Would it be better then to eliminate > test.pl entirely?
Nicholas Clark wrote: > No, it should stay. It intentionally doesn't use packages > internally, and (at least) some other constructions. > (specifically ++. Although a quick skim suggests that > some use of -> for method calls has slipped in, with > File::Spec and Config, in which_perl(), fresh_perl* and > the isa/can tests) Then to eliminate duplication of test.pl in dual-lived modules, a new dual-lived test module will need to be developed that incorporates functionality from test.pl that does not already exist elsewhere. Is this a concensus view, everyone?
