On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > In a series of patches, Father Chrysostomos and I enhanced use_ok() so that it > can apply lexical effects to more closely emulate the real `use`.
> There are two questions: > > 1. Should the lexical effect patches to use_ok() be rolled back? I'm slightly in favour of this. > 2. Should use_ok() be discouraged in the documentation? I'm very much in favour of this. > The new use_ok(), while it works remarkably well, is significantly more > complex than previously and it touches magical variables $^H and %^H. There > is a danger of invoking bugs by touching those variables. I still appreciate Joshua Pritikin's parenthetical comment in the original Test.pm: Your test code should be simpler than the code it is testing, yes? > Apologies to Father Chrysostomos if his work is reverted, it has been top > notch. If it is reverted, it may find life in another module where a complete > emulation of use is desired as a user function or method. It might be nice to take the enhanced use_ok code out completely and put it into its own module. Yeah, I know. -- Paul Johnson - p...@pjcj.net http://www.pjcj.net
