Add link to tape-player (in-process reporter) to readme.

[DavidAnson]

No description provided.

[DavidAnson]

If you do not approve of this approach, I will not be offended. Just reject the PR.

[ljharb]

Seems like it might be easier to make a test runner (a binary) instead of a side-effecting require.

[DavidAnson]

I dunno, this was pretty easy. :)

But seriously, I’m not sure I understand the suggestion. If you don’t mind explaining the proposal a bit more, I’d appreciate it. I’m happy to use tape, I just didn’t want to pipe to a formatter.

[ljharb]

That's what I mean - make a new runner, so instead of tape foo, which they'd expect to pipe to a TAP formatter, tape-player foo, which just prints it out formatted.

[DavidAnson]

I get it, thanks, but it seems weirder to me than this and maybe trickier? With how I’ve done it, the use of tape is clear in the script command and the behavior of the exit code obvious. Again, no hard feelings if you reject this PR. This works for me, but I may be the only one who likes it.

[ljharb]

I think it's fine, but let's move it under "other" instead. It's not a formatter, because it's not configurable or swappable - it's just something that patches tape to print "not TAP".