Re: Test::Warn, 'use' vs 'require'

You need to load Test::Warn before perl compiles the warning_like() statements, because that function has a prototype. The easiest way may be to set a flag.

my $have_test_warn = 0;
BEGIN
{
    eval
    {
        require Test::Warn;
        Test::Warn->import();
        $have_test_warn = 1;
    };
}
[download]

Then test for $have_test_warn in your SKIP blocks.

Comment on Re: Test::Warn, 'use' vs 'require' Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Test::Warn, 'use' vs 'require' by Joost (Canon) on Sep 27, 2006 at 23:49 UTC
Ah right, I didn't spot the codeblock prototype. In other words, to make sure the code compiles without warnings if the mode isn't there, this should work: `warning_like( sub { warn "warning!" }, qr(warning), 'basic warning');` [download] "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Test::Warn, 'use' vs 'require' (&) by tye (Sage) on Sep 28, 2006 at 01:49 UTC
Make that: `&warning_like( sub { warn "warning!" }, qr(warning), 'basic warning' +);` [download] (note the `&`) so it will work even if the prototype gets loaded soon enough. Update: Ah, yes, `&` prototypes don't have this problem like some other prototypes do. - tye	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Test::Warn, 'use' vs 'require' (&) by adrianh (Chancellor) on Sep 28, 2006 at 18:19 UTC
(note the &) so it will work even if the prototype gets loaded soon enough. Actually in this instance you don't need the & since the bracketed version is legal code with or without prototypes - so either will work.	[reply]