If it were my module, I would not export anything by default. Default exports are rather evil. When somebody comes along and reads the code:
all_plans_okay();
how do they find where this subroutine is defined? Well, that becomes obvious when the code above it is:
use Test::NoPlan qw( all_plans_okay );
I also find the module name implies nearly the opposite of what it does. I would rename it Test::AllPlans or similar.
I'd also never use the module since I have no problems just settings the 'plan' to some arbitrary number when I first start writing it and then fixing it as a final step. I never do a temporary "no plan". (It took me a while to realize what the motivation for the module was.)
But thanks for contributing this. I hope you find the feedback useful despite its shortcomings. :)
- tye
In reply to Re: RFC: Another test module - Test::NoPlan (NoNoPlan)
by tye
in thread RFC: Another test module - Test::NoPlan
by duncs
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |