Re: Re: RFC - module idea - Devel::StrictObjectHash

revdiablo

Thanks for your reply. I hear what you are saying, personally I have never really had a problem either with hash-based OO. But then again, I never wrote automated tests either until recently, and after doing so, I was surprised by how much more confident I was in my code. Then after I started using Devel::Cover along with the tests, it was like being able to see my code in a whole new light. Now not only was I confident my code worked (tests), but I knew how much of my code is worked by the tests (code coverage). I hope Devel::StrictObjectHash will go along with tools like these. And just give you that extra added layer of confidence. It funny, cause the idea really is that running the module wont actually do anything, because that means your code is correct :)

-stvn

Comment on Re: Re: RFC - module idea - Devel::StrictObjectHash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: RFC - module idea - Devel::StrictObjectHash by revdiablo (Prior) on Apr 22, 2004 at 19:13 UTC
I never wrote automated tests either until recently This is another practice that seems like a great idea, but I'm just too lazy to force myself to do it. Some day, I vow, I will write test suites for my code. It's just so hard to do when the code I write is usually used by 1 user: myself... [I know, excuses excuses] the idea really is that running the module wont actually do anything, because that means your code is correct Indeed, this makes me think of using strict. It's not there for when things go right, it's there for when things go wrong. And of course, since I'm such a big fan of strict, it makes a hypocrite out of me when I say "I've never had a problem with unsafe hashes." I guess I'll just have to live in this state of limbo until I get my act together. 8^)	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RFC - module idea - Devel::StrictObjectHash by stvn (Monsignor) on Apr 22, 2004 at 19:17 UTC
Indeed, this makes me think of using strict. Exactly! Thats what I am going for. -stvn	[reply]