[tap-l] Mad TAP proposal

[Andy Armstrong]

On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:31, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>> This way they can have control over not only which files to
>> run, but which routines (if they're using Test::Class), etc,
>> etc.
>
> … TAP encompasses scenarios where the notion of files and test
> routines doesn’t even compute.

Yes - agree 100%. Hence it shouldn't be part of TAP.

>> Writing your own harness is trivial now. I'd say writing
>> something to emit a new protocol is no easier than writing a
>> script that picks the test files/subs to run.
>
> Agree. Putting this sort of functionality in the default harness
> *is* a good idea so people don’t need to reinvent a common wheel,
> and so you can use a declarative language to define this sort of
> thing. But just make this a config for TAP::Harness.


The config needs to be dynamic at test time - so it might as well be a  
script that runs and outputs a description of which tests to run,  
right? So isn't that nearly TSP? :)

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Hexten