On Oct 26, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 26 Oct 2007, at 17:36, Jonathan Swartz wrote:
Would it be easier to write a subclass of TAP::Harness and use
runtests, instead of Test::Harness and prove? I confess that I'm
still a little confused about the relationship between the two
going forward.
Test::Harness exists only as a compatibility layer. New
applications should use TAP::Harness (and prove uses TAP::Harness too)
In the alpha version of Test::Harness, yes. I also see that runtests
has become prove in TH3.
btw, in Test-Harness-2.99_04, prove's documentation contains this:
=head1 SEE ALSO
C<prove>, which comes with L<Test::Harness> and whose code I've
nicked in a few places (thanks Andy!).
which should probably be rewritten. :)
Thanks
Jon
