On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 08:02:19PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> >I don't care if they're called "Truman Capote", they're lines whose
> >contents
> >are to be ignored. The harness ignores them. They're comments.
>
> They won't always be ignored. I want them returned in the
> Test::Harness::Po
They won't always be ignored. I want them returned in the
Test::Harness::Point object.
*sigh* But you're not going to parse the contents.
Right.
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
I don't care if they're called "Truman Capote", they're lines whose
contents
are to be ignored. The harness ignores them. They're comments.
They won't always be ignored. I want them returned in the
Test::Harness::Point object.
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petd
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:11:45PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> >There was no protocol change here because there never was a protocol.
> >Test::Builder::Tester parses comments! BAD! EVIL! WRONG!
>
> First, there's not a lot T::B::T can do in this situation. One of the
> things you want to test
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
Define a new version of TAP with a single change.
Specifically, emit a version number in the TAP output that describes the
version of TAP that's being emitted.
While this may be an interesting idea, its irr
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 02:07:30PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > PS: As an example of something I'd like to see 'cleaned up' in TAP -- I
> > have a lifelong aversion to 'syntactic comments', i.e., comments that
> > actually have a meaning to something parsing them. Accordingly, I'd
> > love to se
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 18:26 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> PS: As an example of something I'd like to see 'cleaned up' in TAP -- I
> have a lifelong aversion to 'syntactic comments', i.e., comments that
> actually have a meaning to something parsing them. Accordingly, I'd
> love to see "not ok 2
PS: As an example of something I'd like to see 'cleaned up' in TAP --
I have a lifelong aversion to 'syntactic comments', i.e., comments
that actually have a meaning to something parsing them. Accordingly,
I'd love to see "not ok 2 # TODO bend space and time" become "todo 2 #
bend space and ti
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> Define a new version of TAP with a single change.
>
> Specifically, emit a version number in the TAP output that describes the
> version of TAP that's being emitted.
While this may be an interesting idea, its irrelevant to the TBT pr
Michael G Schwern wrote:
I don't have a long term solution for users of test_diag(). I'm entertaining
ideas. "Don't change the failure output" is not one of them. One temporary
hack is to parse the test_diag() input, look for attempts to match the old
Test::More diagnostics and translate it in
Michael G Schwern writes:
> I'm absorbing Test::Builder::Tester into the Test-Simple distribution.
Thank you for doing this -- a practical way of sorting out the
situation.
Smylers
--
May God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a
difference in this world, so that we can
On Oct 7, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm absorbing Test::Builder::Tester into the Test-Simple distribution.
This kills three birds with one stone:
- Anyone who updates Test::More gets a fixed Test::Builder::Tester
which should solve most the current problem, unless you use
12 matches
Mail list logo
