I only like to do things the hard way when it makes things easier. :-)
The only limitation of command line testing addressed by a REPL (read-eval-print loop) is the quoting problem. Both command lines and REPLs are excellent tools for quick clarifications. They are less helpful when one wants to really explore what subroutine X::foo really does with its parameters, especially if you only use that language feature or X::foo every few months.
Command lines also have up-cursors and history. However, the history of command lines and REPLs is basically a session transcript and goes away after N lines of input. You can't go back to last week or last month's tests (unless you use it very rarely). You could increase N so that a longer history can be kept, but the history isn't categorized by topic the way a named file can be.
Best, beth
In reply to Re^2: Using Test::More to make sense of documentation
by ELISHEVA
in thread Using Test::More to make sense of documentation
by ELISHEVA
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |