Re^2: too much testing?

If that was a design choice, why was it called Test::More? I'm thinking of Matrix Reloaded, when Agent Smith demands more agents join the fight with Neo. MORE!

I also don't think it's consistent with the DESCRIPTION in Test::More's perldoc:

The purpose of this module is to provide a wide range of testing utilities. Various ways to say "ok" with better diagnostics, facilities to skip tests, test future features and compare complicated data structures. While you can do almost anything with a simple "ok()" function, it doesn't provide good diagnostic output.

And incidentally, I've also wondered why there wasn't a not_ok function.

Comment on Re^2: too much testing?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: too much testing? by adrianh (Chancellor) on Oct 03, 2005 at 13:45 UTC
If that was a design choice, why was it called Test::More Because it tests more than Test::Simple. It's not Test::Everything :-) Schwern (quite rightly in my opinion) has kept Test::More to a minimal set of useful stuff. And incidentally, I've also wondered why there wasn't a not_ok function. Probably because providing one wouldn't really give you any additional useful information over doing something like: `ok( not $expected_to_be_false );` [download]	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: too much testing?
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Oct 03, 2005 at 13:45 UTC

If that was a design choice, why was it called Test::More

Because it tests more than Test::Simple. It's not Test::Everything :-)

Schwern (quite rightly in my opinion) has kept Test::More to a minimal set of useful stuff.

And incidentally, I've also wondered why there wasn't a not_ok function.

Probably because providing one wouldn't really give you any additional useful information over doing something like:

ok( not $expected_to_be_false  );
[download]

[reply]
[d/l]