Test::Harness features

[Andy Armstrong]

On 9 Jun 2009, at 22:14, Steve Purkis wrote:
> As for worrying about how this can be used via Test::Harness I'd say:
> if you want this feature, too bad, you've gotta upgrade.  Yes we need
> to worry about backwards compat, but as far as I know Test::Harness
> never supported plugins ;-).  And as it stands, I can kind of see the
> benefit of making back-doors with %ENV vars, but what stands out to me
> is the cost to us: added complexity, more complicated support cases, a
> stickier backwards compat web, and basically time that could be better
> spent.  So my question is: what's wrong with asking people to upgrade?


I agree - although right now the question would be "upgrade to what?"  
given that, for example, I don't think there's an EUMM that talks  
directly to TAP::Harness (for example).

Given that EUMM needs verbs that are easily callable as a one-liner  
maybe we should make sure it's easy enough to call TAP::Harness in  
that way and bung a patch against EUMM in Schwern's direction.

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Hexten