Re: Should Test2 maintain $! and $@?

2016-01-12 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 1/11/16 4:53 PM, Chad Granum wrote: > Test::More/Test::Builder work VERY hard to ensure nothing inside them alters > $! or $@. This is for > thing like this: > > ok(do_something_scary()); > is($!, 0, "expected $! val"); > is($@, undef, '$@ not changed'); > > Without

Re: Should Test2 maintain $! and $@?

2016-01-12 Thread Sawyer X
[Top-posting] Chad, I think I understand what you mean now. You were referring to whether the underlying pinnings should take care of it (Test2) or whether the chrome (testing functions) around that should do so. Yes? If so, I think you should probably clarify what Test2 *does* do. It doesn't

Re: Should Test2 maintain $! and $@?

2016-01-12 Thread Kent Fredric
On 13 January 2016 at 10:48, Sawyer X wrote: > > If so, I think you should probably clarify what Test2 *does* do. It > doesn't provide the functions - alright. What *does* it provide then? Oh, and thought: It may help to consider what testing /testing tools/ looks like here,

Re: Should Test2 maintain $! and $@?

2016-01-12 Thread Sawyer X
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 13 January 2016 at 10:48, Sawyer X wrote: >> >> If so, I think you should probably clarify what Test2 *does* do. It >> doesn't provide the functions - alright. What *does* it provide then? > > >

Re: Should Test2 maintain $! and $@?

2016-01-12 Thread Sawyer X
[Top-posted] Chad, thank you for the detailed response. I think I now understand the scope of the problem and your solutions. I think it makes sense to put this in the guts inside the construction of a new context (or retrieval of current context) and in the release of that context. Kent, am I