On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:10:17 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> > It makes it simpler to develop and maintain the test (because you can do
> > more work with traditional emacs support for editing elisp), but might
> > make interpreting failures more difficult (the test harness mostly just
> > reports 'failed').
> 
> It is really nice to see diffs on failure, actually, to get a sense of
> what exactly went wrong.

Agreed.

> Is it possible to have some sort of standard report to stdout that
> could provide more info?

A little syntactic sugar will improve things I expect (have to avoid
re-implementing ert though). I'll have a play.