http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=821550


in reply to Re: Should Test::Most import strict and warnings?
in thread Should Test::Most import strict and warnings?

Test::Most, not Test::More. That's a very important difference here.

Cheers,
Ovid

The official Perl 6 wiki.

  • Comment on Re^2: Should Test::Most import strict and warnings?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Should Test::Most import strict and warnings?
by JavaFan (Canon) on Feb 05, 2010 at 14:34 UTC
    Test::Most, not Test::More. That's a very important difference here.
    Sorry, I'm just used to typing Test::More.

    But that doesn't change my arguments. I wouldn't want any module to turn on a pragma in the calling scope - unless that is its specific purpose. turn::on::all::pragmata should turn it on. But not something from the Test::* namespace.

[reply]

      I'd say that reducing boilerplate code is one of the main advantages of Test::Most, so I think it will be logically if it will enable strict and warnings. The people who don't love surprises and magic can always replace it with: 

      use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::More;
use Test::Exception;
use Test::Differences;
use Test::Deep;
use Test::Warn;

      [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
        It's not that I think the person typing in use Test::Most will be surprised.

        It's the person inheriting the code.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom