On 12/15/2012 05:37 PM, Ovid wrote: > Hi Justin, > > This is something I've wondered as well. Several times when people asked me > about using Test::Class with Moose I pointed them to Test::Able, though I > confess I never used that code. Invariably they would not choose it. I think > what's going on is the interface. It looks "different" and that's possibly > scaring people off. The interface for Test::Class::Moose looks very similar > to Test::Class and that might make for easier adoption if I ever do enough to > get it out of alpha. > > Please note that I'm not saying that what I've written is better! However, > the comfort level of the Test::Class::Moose interface may be appealing to > some.
There's also Test::Sweet-- another Moose/Test::Class mashup which I haven't developed an opinion of: https://metacpan.org/module/Test::Sweet I can see that one difference is that it uses Devel::Declare. As I looked more at Test::Class::Moose, one thing I really like is that plans are completely gone. Thank you. Two questions: 1. About this: "use Test::Class::Moose;" Why not standard inheritance to add Test::Class functionality? It looke the rationale here is to save a line of boilerplate with the "use Moose" line. 2. About this syntax for extending a test class: use Test::Class::Moose parent => 'TestsFor::Some::Class'; why not use standard inheritance in a class, and to extend a class using test::Class? Or could you 'extends' in the import list here to look more Moose-y? Mark
