On 30 Nov 2007, at 02:07, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip perfectly reasonable argument]
Also, shell is a ubiquitous tool that you're going to use over and
over again,
so some rote learning is justified. prove is not such a thing.
You may well be right. We may all be right. I'm losing the will to
think about it any more. You know where it lives if you want to commit
something more closely resembling your approach.
Anyhow, I'm with chromatic. We're shoving too much functionality
into one
interface.
I've noticed that it's hardly a minimal wrapper any more. I'm not /
entirely/ oblivious to such aesthetic niceties :)
I've been wanting the state stuff for ages. I considered putting it in
App::ProvePlus and releasing that separately but, particularly with
Adrian's tuning, it seems like something that anyone who is using
prove (as opposed to make test / cpan) might find useful. I don't see
it as feature creep; rather it seemed to me that prove was lacking an
interface to control which tests execute in what order.
I'm uncertain of the utility of being able to pass args to tests from
prove - but as a result of implementing it the interface for passing
args to tests via TAP::Harness, whether or not you're using --exec, is
cleaner. The syntax debate isn't worth any more of anyone's headspace.
If people need it they'll work it out; if they don't they're unlikely
to trip over it. That's good enough.
So I'm unrepentant but have no intention of continuing to bloat prove.
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
