* Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> [2012-04-11 18:35]: > Nope, too much magic for too small a use case.
And faithfully duplicating `use` would be less so? :-) I don’t see how it is any more magic than `done_testing`. What exactly makes you uneasy? Maybe there is a way to address that if you can be more specific. What I don’t like about duplicating `use` is that you need to diddle internals and keep in mind a long series of edge cases in the interface that matter to almost no one except those few people who need them. So it’s very difficult to be sure that the implementation is fully complete and correct, and hard to find out at short notice when it gets broken by changes to perl, if any. And all that when there is no reason not to just use the original instead. It’s ridiculous when you stop to think about it. > Let me reiterate, I have no plans to *deprecate* `use_ok`. Even if > I wanted to there are simply too many users to make deprecation worth > while. Yes, as I mentioned, I can see that. > It works fine if what you want is a runtime require + import + assert, > and sometimes you want that. The problem is it's been overused and > has come to replace a simple `use` in test scripts. To that end the > question is whether to *discourage* its use in the documentation: to > scale it back from "use this when you load a module" to "use this for > some special cases". *Which* special cases? I would rather not recommend it in any case ever. My suggestion to ship AutoBailOut was so you would be able to suggest it as a replacement in the docs, as it covers the one case where `use_ok` is even of interest (though still not the right solution). But I guess you could do that even if it ships outside of Test::More. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
