On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:34:49AM +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:08:49 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G. Schwern)
>said:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:20:55PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> <[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.
>
> > Is that it? Historical reasons?
>
> No. For me the reason was this reminder in TEST:
>
> # This is written in a peculiar style, since we're trying to avoid
> # most of the constructs we'll be testing for.
>
> > Would anyone scream if I gave a shot at gutting TEST?
>
> No, but I do believe, we should keep something like TEST for at least
> base/, cmd, and op/ as a fallback. When some construct within
> Test::Harness breaks, the poor pumking should get a quicker
Poor pumpkin agrees.
> alternative than running single tests manually.
>
> --
> andreas
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
