Good option. Only downside is that you lose the prototyping of the test functions, and the calling syntax is a little more complex (in my opinion).

You would also need to have it as:

wrapper (\&is, sub {$o->answer}, 42, 'answer returned 42')
[download]

(we can only prototype the sub away if the coderef is the first argument)

One other problem would be in figuring out the test name to output when an exception is thrown. Since it's optional for test subs it may, or may not, be the last argument.

In my other post I stopped just short of proposing

sub lives_and_tests_ok (&&;$) {
    my ($case, $test, $name) = @_;
    local $@;
    my $result = eval { $case->() };
    $@ ? fail($name) : $test->($result, $name);
}
[download]

because it’s somewhat confusing to read the following:

lives_and_tests_ok (
    sub { $o->answer },
    sub { is shift, 42, shift },
    "answer is 42"
);
[download]

I briefly pondered

sub lives_and_tests_ok (&&;$) {
    my ($case, $test, $name) = @_;
    local $@;
    local ($b, $a) = ($name, eval { $case->() });
    $@ ? fail($name) : $test->($result, $name);
}
[download]

but I don’t think it’s any more readable than

lives_and_tests_ok (
    sub { $o->answer },
    sub { is $a, 42, $b },
    "answer is 42"
);
[download]

Makeshifts last the longest.

lives_and_tests_ok (
   sub { $o->answer },
   sub { is $a, 42, $b },
   "answer is 42"
);
[download]

I quite like this one actually :-) However, is there some problem with:

is live{$o->answer}, 42, 'answer is 42';
[download]

that I'm missing?