On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 05:27:02PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote: > On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:41:59AM -0600, Scott Bolte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I agree, but I still believe it would be good if Test::Harness > > laid out syntax rules for extensions. > > There are no extensions. They're up to whoever wants to. I'm certainly > not going to define arbitrary rules based on a sample size of one.
Yep, your syntax "rules" are what the existing T::H rules are. Use them as inspiration. > I DO want to document the format, however, so that other languages can > write to the T::H format reliably, and let T::H become the uber-tester. Some sort of BNF, if the syntax can be wedged into one, would be nice. What does need to be done is for me to finish abstracting out the formatter to allow custom harness more easily. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid.
