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

[Ovid]

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.

[JavaFan]

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.

[zwon]

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;

[JavaFan]

It's not that I think the person typing in use Test::Most will be surprised.

It's the person inheriting the code.