--- Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07/03/07, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Where does TAP::Tests fit in? D'you mean as an alternative to > > > Test::More or whatever? > > > > Yes, an alternative to Test::More. Some thoughts: > > Where is it?
It's all in my head. You don't want to go there. > > * Output everything to STDOUT (thereby avoiding the buffering > > problems that many experience) > > Sounds like a replacement for Test::Builder not just Test::More. Well, I guess it would be a replacement for Test::Builder and various testing modules. It would be rather important to try and make it work with existing test modules, though. Not sure how workable that would be since we'd have to build in support for things not wanted. > Here's what I want from TAP 2.0 > > * be able to associate diagnostics with a specifc test (currently > they appear after the test by convention) Agreed. That's a major requirement of TAP 2.0. > * nested blocks, each with it's own plan (or no plan) I like this thought. > * tags, I think tags would be extremely useful Right now they can be done informally with the current TAP grammar and still work with existing tools, but built in support would be nice. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
