On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> wrote: > The major Mo[ou]se features that Test::Builder2 uses heavily is roles and > attributes. It also uses types, coercion, meta classes and method modifiers, > but those could be removed if necessary. I've tried to keep it simple to > avoid touching any actual or potential Mouse bugs.
Attributes -- leaving aside types and coercion -- are you just talking about the sugar? And I wonder if Role::Tiny could be extended to do multiple roles. Or could you do a poor-man's version of roles using mix-ins? I understand the goal of decomposition and why Mo[ou]se rocks, but for a testing framework, maybe simpler is better. For example, Moose will detect method clashes with roles, right? (I assume Mouse does that.) Do you really need that? Or could you verify the design "by hand" rather than relying on a MOP to do the work for you? How much of it is fundamental to what you're trying to do and how much of it is just making life easier for you in implementing it? Granted, well tested Mouse might be less buggy than hand-rolled replacement, but a special-purpose class framework could possibly be simpler (thus faster and less buggy). [N.B. Not arguing not to use it -- trying to provoke discussion of preexisting assumptions.] -- David
