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