On 7/3/05, Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > demerphq wrote: > > Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More > > with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and > > just add an extra method. > > I think it would be much more usefull to have your module work with > rather than in place of Test::More. I can't see any advantage in > replacing Test::More.
Yeah. Im open to that pov too. Originally i wanted to change the behaviour of is_deeply(), but now i dont so a pure mix in is an option. But the problem is that with just one method Test::Struct doesnt do much good on its own. So then it has to be combined with something else. And thats typing i was thinking could be avoided. And it doesnt replace Test::More so much as replace the need to use Test::More explicitly. Everything Test::More does is still done by Test::More. yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
