The diag() debate raged on in pdx tonight. Of course, the sides are
roughly in agreement about most things, but with differing priorities
and ideas about particulars of the implementation.
Perhaps it's time to collect the issues and do some thinking.
Fundamentals:
1. Anything on STDERR
On 15 Mar 2007, at 09:20, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
At the moment, what I'm seeing is differences in priorities placed on
wants #1 and #2 and/or how much of which want you're willing to give
up for the other.
Right. Agreed. So let's nail this down to specific actions. My plan for
TAP::Parser -
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael G Schwern
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piping all diagnostics to STDOUT solves nothing except maybe allowing runtests
to display warnings again. You still can't tell the difference between a
comment (what currently is # foo printed to STDOUT) and a failure
I believe I now know how to move towards no longer using STDERR for failure
information display AND keep compatibility with existing test scripts, even
those not written using Test::Builder or Test.pm AND not require
Test::Builder, Test.pm and TH not be upgraded in lock step AND not introduce
Michael G Schwern wrote:
print TAP version 15\n;
print 1..1\n;
print # Information\n;
print not ok 1\n;
print ! Failure\n;
I'd really not like to see meaningful punctuation. How about
diag Failure\n. Or even levels of keywords debug/info/notice/warning/
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
print TAP version 15\n;
print 1..1\n;
print # Information\n;
print not ok 1\n;
print ! Failure\n;
I'd really not like to see meaningful punctuation.
I'm going to say its if a line starts with a ! just for
