<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Why is t/TEST anything more than a thin wrapper around Test::Harness?
Because t/TEST pre-dates Test::Harness by years, and no one has got
round to changing 'make test' call the new style.
>It contains a partial reimplementation, but is missing some very
>useful features, such as skip and todo tests. I particularly miss
>todo tests. There's alot of little bugs which people mention and then
>are forgotten, I'd like to be able to encode them into the tests.
>That way, we can have an automated reminder of what's todo.
>
>I presume that part of the reason is that should Test::Harness fail,
>we won't be able to run the test suite. And being a production
>module, Test::Harness would be more prone to change and thus breakage.
>
>I'm torn between simply hacking todo and skip into TEST, using
>Test::Harness or modularizing TEST into Test::Harness::Basic
>(Test::Harness::Reins?) or something.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
