Welcome to the Monastery | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Your suggestion regarding do looks very interesting. But to go through your points in order: My concern about "exposure" (which might not be the best word) is that either I would have to use something like Exporter and end up with sub names in a namespace where I haven't planned for them to be (risking unintended consequences) or I have to use namespace::sub to call them. Maybe it's just prejudice on my part, but this doesn't appeal to me. I can't express my reservations clearly, but I feel uncomfortable doing it. As far as adding another level of indirection is concerned, I have no difficulty describing my reservations! :-) I am already passing references around in such a way that leads to code like if (defined $${$${$hashref}{'refTextAry'}}[0]) {. In a separate file, I have over 100 lines of code explaining to myself just why this works. "Just one more level of indirection" fills me with terror. I really wouldn't trust myself to be able to write working tests. I am definitely interested in do, though. Unfortunately, the docs seem confusing, at least at first glance. do EXPRisn't a good start for me. The only time I've met cat is as the Unix equivalent of type, which seems to contradict "executes ... a Perl script". Your explanation seems far clearer, but I'll have to do some experimenting to find out what is and isn't possible. Thanks & regards, John Davies In reply to Re^2: TDD of non-module code
by davies
|
|