On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:57:57PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 18:31:24 -0500, G. Wade Johnson said:
> > > No. Test is just too generic. HTTP makes more sense, or perhaps something
> > > related to the fact that it is a multi-protocol thingy - perhaps it should go
> > > in the alread-existing Networking category. Things should be categorized by
> > > useful categories, not huge amorphous ones.
> > >
> > > WRT multi-file scripts, no, that does not work yet.
>
> ..
> >
> > In defense of my suggestion, I was thinking of paralleling the
> > Test::Harness Perl module, or something.
> >
> > Any other comments?
>
> My opinions are just my opinions, and don't necessarily reflect the official
> position of "the scripts committee". Kurt would be the final word on this.
Rich, you're a committee member in good standing, and your opinion
counts just as much as mine (IMHO). I do agree that Test is quite
generic for a script. Script categories probably won't exactly parallel
module categories -- a central tenet of a script is that it's specific,
whereas modules are usually more generic.
Wade, it sounds like you're developing some very generic functionality.
Have you considered making a module of it, and including your example
script(s) in the distribution?
- Kurt
