On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:55 AM, Tassilo von Parseval wrote:
Do you think this might work better, or could be implemented as, a
seperate Test::Fork type module?
It certainly could be done. But it would essentially share 90% of its
code with Test::Builder.
Umm, subclassing? :-)
It's simple really: Either my proposed method
is robust in which case it can go into Test-Simple. Or it isn't. Then
there's no need to implement it as a separate module. :-)
I don't think it is that simple. *IF* there are any bugs in this
niche feature, then it could break the most popular test module on
CPAN. Clearly from your proposed patch, any code that needs the fork
feature of Test::More says so explicitly via the $self->{Forked}
property. So specifying a subclass instead, like a hypothetical
Test::More::Forked, should be trivial. I have not yet seen any
justification for adding this feature to Test::More itself.
Chris
--
Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc.
608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703
vCard: http://www.chrisdolan.net/ChrisDolan.vcf
Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software
(http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary
Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)
