On Sep 25, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Dave Thomas wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:28 AM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
>
>> Don't break!!  test/unit (using mini/test) should be compatible IMO.
>
> It already isn't compatible. Matz made that decision when allowing  
> it in. So let's not carry past mistakes forward for compatibility  
> reasons.

Does it make sense to have require 'test/unit' be a test/unit  
compatible shim on top of mini/test?  Then require 'mini/test' can use  
all the improved nomenclature and techniques.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich
-- jim.weirich / gmail.com