# from Michael G Schwern
# on Sunday 30 October 2011 20:30:
>The current Test::Builder implementation is a mess and its design
> cannot go forward. They have to be gotten just right to ensure that
> not just nested TAP is supported, but nesting in other formats. Or
> if those formats don't have
On 2011.10.30 7:21 PM, David Golden wrote:
> I haven't followed the T::B 2 work closely enough, so could I ask you
> to please step back and explain the benefits of T::B 1.5 that is worth
> stepping backwards in terms of capabilities? What I mean is that we
> have TAP::Harness now that processes s
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2011.10.30 2:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> I prefer the current subtests system for a few reasons:
>>
>> * With the new system I would have to re-write TAP streams from other sources
>> to match the numbering system of the current str
On 2011.10.30 2:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> I prefer the current subtests system for a few reasons:
>
> * With the new system I would have to re-write TAP streams from other sources
> to match the numbering system of the current stream. This makes more work for
> folk who are pulling in TAP stre
Hiya,
On 29 Oct 2011, at 10:20, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
>>> which have their own separate test state (as cu
