[tap-l] Mad TAP proposal

[Andy Armstrong]

On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:32, Michael Peters wrote:
> But if they just do their own harness it becomes:
>
> push('xt/frob', @tests)if frob_avail();
> push('xt/slow) if all_the_time_in_the_world();
> Test::Harness::runtests(@tests);


Yes, they could. But if you write your own harness you presumably  
lose, e.g.,  the advantages of all the different ways you can run the  
tests via prove. And presumably you couldn't use tk-prove or whatever  
it's called.

It's mixing test logic into harness logic. Isn't it better for the  
tests to be completely self describing and keep the harness generic?  
Then your tests will work with any Test::Harness based tool and any  
compatible TAP harness.

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Hexten