On 2011.10.28 12:23 AM, Ovid wrote:
> Echo chamber alert: I've often seen long discussions on this list ignore
> the "real world" (though often for good reason). In this case, it sounds
> like there's a consideration of removing a feature from TAP.
No, not removing from TAP but removing support for producing it from
Test::Builder.
> I also find subtests so incredibly
> convenient and opens up so many possibilities that I would hate to lose them
> (and I use them a lot).
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate test state (as currently implemented)?
--
"Clutter and overload are not an attribute of information,
they are failures of design"
-- Edward Tufte
