String eval is the underlying basis of what the Test::* modules do.

You're going to have to show some code to prove that.

If you encountered the level of c&p coding that exist in most Test::* test suites, in production code, you would (rightly) be up in arms about it.

Even if I thought you had looked at "most Test::* test suites", the existence of bad code does not prove that it's impossible to write good code. Remember, I extracted Test::Builder so that people could write their own Test::* modules in part to reduce duplication in their test suites. I've also argued for years that refactoring tests is just as important as refactoring production code.

How many novices have responded in this thread?

Your original post talked about people who were learning through doing and implied strongly that you think a contrarian position is important for people who haven't been knocked around enough to see the nuance in things.

If that's not novices, then perhaps you could rephrase things to be more clear. (Several other people in this thread have asked "What does this have to do with the Test::* modules?")

Or perhaps you feel that no debate on this subject is called for?

I suspect that other people object to what you write not because you're wrong but because you can be so unpleasant about it.

In reply to Re^5: Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut. by chromatic
in thread Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut. by BrowserUk

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":