Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Subroutines? I don't know if I follow. Do you mean...
>
> sub foo {
> extend(2);
>
> pass();
> bar();
> pass();
> }
>
> sub bar {
> extend(3);
> pass();
> pass();
> pass();
> }
>
> I believe that can be made to work without a TAP extension. Its the
> producer which does the stack watching and generates the errors instead of
> the TAP parser.
As a matter of fact, thinking about it more, this sort of thing has to be
able to work in the TAP producer. How else will it know what group its
currently in to output the appropriate TAP?
