Jim Porter

I'm not sure about this. I intended for this to be handled with a simple `for` loop or `std::for_each` or whatever the ranges version of that is. If we lived...

I thought about this a bit more, and I think there's some value in doing this, since it's a bit more difficult to parameterize root-level suites with multiple values (obviously,...

This would be nice, but it's probably going to take a bit, since I haven't even made an official release of `mettle` yet (though it's probably close enough to do...

This is working for Debian packages now. Anyone who knows a lot about packaging for other systems should feel free to help out though, since I don't do a lot...

If you don't mind waiting a couple weeks, I'll see if I can whip up some code (probably as a separate project) that you could use to glue mettle and...

Hmm, thinking about it more, it might be simpler to just expose `wrap_property` as a public function and then use it like this: ```c++ _.test("my property test", wrap_property([](const std::vector& l0)...

That said, I'm pretty stoked that things came together so well! Aside from the `make_suite` issues, there are a couple of things I see in your code that indicate unnecessary...

@JohnGalbraith getting back to this, are there any major issues with my suggestion [here](https://github.com/jimporter/mettle/issues/24#issuecomment-290187167)? You could provide some code like this: ```c++ template auto property(Testable testable) { return [testable]() {...

@JohnGalbraith Another option that would give RapidCheck properties (mostly) equal footing with regular mettle tests would be for me to add `test()` as a free function, similar to how there's...

> I know that I already have trouble with Mettle compile times with big parameterized suites (my favorite Mettle feature!) and getting even more cute with templates could make this...