On Wednesday 02 November 2005 08:23, Michael G Schwern wrote:
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.
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 problemI'd like to see
that sort of thing as patches to Test::Harness rather than in a fork.
is that some aspects of the T::H interface suck, and I had to change the
interface in a non-backwards-compatible way.
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.
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%.
