non-micro-packages like Test::Most.
Test::Most is a bit confused in that it provides both real functionality as well as the "micro-package" features. If Test::Most were split (only hypothetically, I'm not so much suggesting that it do so) into Test::Most::Features and Test::Most::ImportOtherPackages (where the strictures enforcing would be placed), then my beef is with Test::Most::ImportOtherPackages, and not with Test::Most::Features.
I am curious as to why you think Moose should be a pragma?
pragma (meaning just "all lower-case name") modules advertise "something more than simple function importing is happening here". Aside from enabling strict, I believe, Moose accomplishes everything it does via simple sub imports (no overwriting of core functions, ...) so strictly speaking it should not be a pragma. However, it does feel a lot more magical than a plain module, and it imports subs which further create/import more subs which feels like it is extending the syntax of perl... Thus, I would accept arguments that it could have been named all-lower. Though I am not necessarily arguing that it should have.
Good Day,
Dean
In reply to Re^3: Should Test::Most import strict and warnings?
by duelafn
in thread Should Test::Most import strict and warnings?
by Ovid
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |