[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       perl-qa
Subject:    Re: [RFC] Dual-lifing test.pl
From:       David Landgren <david () landgren ! net>
Date:       2008-07-16 22:48:10
Message-ID: 487E7AAA.4000003 () landgren ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Nicholas Clark a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:31:22AM -0400, Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
> 
>> If the functionality in test.pl (that does not currently
>> exist in other module) could be duplicated elsewhere using a
>> Test::Builder-based module, would there be a reason then to
>> maintain test.pl?  Would it be better then to eliminate
>> test.pl entirely?
> 
> No, it should stay. It intentionally doesn't use packages internally, and (at
> least) some other constructions. (specifically ++.

I played with this a bit a couple of years ago. What I wanted to do at 
the time was to see how far one could push the envelope using an 
absolute minimal syntax, such as replacing unless () by negated if, && 
and || by 'and' and 'or' (or at least settling on one or the other), 
eschewing statement modifiers, ternaries and so on.

I also wanted to prove that t/base/* and t/cmd/* provided tests for
all constructs seen in test.pl, but after playing around with B::Concise 
for a while I realised it was a non-trivial undertaking.

David

> Although a quick skim suggests that some use of -> for method calls has
> slipped in, with File::Spec and Config, in which_perl(), fresh_perl* and
> the isa/can tests)

Oh the decadence.

> Nicholas Clark

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]