On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:25:14PM -0700, Jonathan Swartz wrote: > Ok. Thanks for the mention of Devel::Hide. There is also > Test::Without::Module and Module::Mask, which all look pretty similar. > > But I still have two problems with using any of these directly: > 1) I have to specify exactly which modules to hide. Since I don't know > in advance which modules I might delete, I want to hide all the > modules that CHI provides (which will be tedious and error-prone to > list), or at least hide everything matching /^CHI::/. > > Would this make sense as its own module, or as an enhancement of one > of the above?
I'd do it as an enhancement, current maintainers willing. A small number of high-quality general-purpose choices are better than a large number of special-cases some of which don't work very well. That's why I hacked support for hiding modules from child processes into Devel::Hide instead of releasing Yet Another Module Hiding Module to do it. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig
