Grokbase Groups Perl qa October 2005
FAQ

On Wednesday 02 November 2005 08:23, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 03:16:01PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I'd like to see
that sort of thing as patches to Test::Harness rather than in a fork.
Well, I started with Test::Harness and gradually revamped it. The problem
is that some aspects of the T::H interface suck, and I had to change the
interface in a non-backwards-compatible way.
Given that the existing interface is pretty simple, I really don't see why
one has to completely fork the code base just to put on a new interface.
Surely any new code with a fancy new interface can continue to emulate the
old one.
Well, here is my beef with it:

1. It's not an object and as a result cannot be instantiated, or methods be
over-rided, etc.

2. In Test::Harness :

my($tot, $failedtests) = _run_all_tests(@tests);
_show_results($tot, $failedtests);

my $ok = _all_ok($tot);

Vs. mine:

my($failedtests) =
$self->_run_all_tests();
$self->_show_results();

my $ok = $self->_all_ok();

3. Various functions return flat hashes instead of hash references.

4. Many things are accessed by a field ($ref->{'field'}) instead of by
accessor ($ref->field()).

5. Various global variables instead of instance variables.

6. I had done a lot of refactoring and revamp and broke a lot of the
interface.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif@iglu.org.il
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the
bottom 5%.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 17 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupqa @
categoriesperl
postedOct 10, '05 at 8:57p
activeNov 6, '05 at 3:15p
posts18
users10
websiteqa.perl.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase