----- Original Message ---- From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In regex terms, a directive is simply > ($type, $reason) = /#\s*(\S+)(?:\s+(.*))?$/. TAPx::Parser > can record the type and reason and move along. You might > want to warn about the unknown directive type, but consider > this would get in the way of adding new directive types. Should warning about unknown directives be optional? I imagine that a lot of folks would get concerned about tests spitting out a bunch of warnings. Regexp::Common has thousands of tests which pass flawlessly, so spitting out thousands of warnings might prove very annoying for folks and I can't imagine Abigail would relish the thought of going through and updating all of those tests (and I imagine other authors would feel the same way). > Either way, TAPx::Parser should be tolerant of nonsense > following the simple ok/not ok. It should at least record > the basic pass/fail info. Currently this is how it works with the caveat that unknown directives become part of the description, though I take your point about being able to add new directives. That would be handy. Cheers, Ovid
