On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 11:19:38AM +0200, demerphq wrote: > If the module > is intended to be used in conjunction with a GP test module like T::M > or T::S why should it even care about handling plan semantics at all?
So that it can stand alone with or without Test::More. > > Something that is planned is the ability to change out the default > > Test::Builder object as well as moving yet more functionality out of > > Test::More and into Test::Builder. > > http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bug.html?id=8379 > > http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bug.html?id=8630 > > I think thats a good idea. But then does that mean that implementors > should actually be inheriting from Test::Builder so that their > routines are also available through the back end in addition to > providing easy to use subs for export? You only inherit from Test::Builder if you're changing Test::Builder and NOT if you're simply using it. Your::Test::Module and Test::Builder have a HASA relationship, not an ISA. A test module has different behaviors and purposes than Test::Builder. So if you were concerned about making your methods available through a backend like TB you'd make a TB subclass, put your methods in that and then have a separate module which uses (delegates to) your TB subclass for a grand total of two custom classes. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Don't try the paranormal until you know what's normal. -- "Lords and Ladies" by Terry Prachett
