In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > The most bangs I can count instantly by looking at them is four. > > For five bangs and up, all I see is âlots of bangs.â I have to > > count character by character to tell them apart. Visually, > > I canât distinguish `fatal` from `fail` at all. Another problem > > is that Iâd never remember the exact hierarchy. So with your > > proposal Iâd have to count bangs for any message of import, and > > then go look which number means what. > > Do you, as a human, have to exactly distinguish them? Isn't the content of > the message and the rough number of bangs enough? > > not ok 1 > !!!!! Failed test in foo.t line 2 > ok 2 > !!!!!!! WHOA! The fabric of the universe just broke down! > !!!!!!! This should never happen! Please contact the author immediately! if you're going to use a different starting character for these messages, how about a [ ? Follow the start of the string by a real word: not ok 1 [fail] Failed test in foo.t line 2 ok 2 [fatal] WHOA! The fabric of the universe just broke down! [damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a programmer!] This should never happen! Please contact the author immediately! It doesn't set it off visually as nicely as the repeated bangs, but that's not the goal here. People want to read this stuff programmatically. :)
