From: gfx Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:48:58 +0000 (+0900) Subject: Fix docs. The phrases "Fewer than 1%" and "over 96%" are very confusing, so I removed... X-Git-Tag: 0.50_03~1 X-Git-Url: http://git.shadowcat.co.uk/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=4aaed9e5cc435a2085e46f4c98a3abc233ecacaf;p=gitmo%2FMouse.git Fix docs. The phrases "Fewer than 1%" and "over 96%" are very confusing, so I removed them. --- diff --git a/lib/Mouse.pm b/lib/Mouse.pm index d3b1d56..8618702 100644 --- a/lib/Mouse.pm +++ b/lib/Mouse.pm @@ -212,10 +212,9 @@ B except for testing modules. =head2 MOOSE COMPATIBILITY -Compatibility with Moose has been the utmost concern. Fewer than 1% of the -tests fail when run against Moose instead of Mouse. Mouse code coverage is also -over 96%. Even the error messages are taken from Moose. The Mouse code just -runs the test suite 4x faster. +Compatibility with Moose has been the utmost concern. The sugary interface is +highly compatible with Moose. Even the error messages are taken from Moose. +The Mouse code just runs the test suite 4x faster. The idea is that, if you need the extra power, you should be able to run C on your codebase and have nothing break. To that end, @@ -226,7 +225,7 @@ Moose, if you run into weird errors, it would be worth running: ANY_MOOSE=Moose perl your-script.pl to see if the bug is caused by Mouse. Moose's diagnostics and validation are -also much better. +also better. See also L for compatibility and incompatibility with Moose.