On 18 Mar 2007, at 01:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
In the TAP stream the association between a block of YAML and a
particular
test could be made explicit by putting the test number in the block.
not ok 5
---
test: 5
got: 23
expected: 42
...
This would be optional. How's that?
I'd rather just make it explicit that each test result may be
followed by zero or one YAML documents containing information
relating to that test. In effect a test and its optional diagnostics
should be an atom I think.
I think it's worthwhile to define the subset of YAML that we
expect to
see. If you just say it's YAML then potentially you're requiring the
baggage of a hugely complex parser.
OTOH someone else has already written that hugely complex parser...
well,
unfortunately in the case of YAML that might not be true.
Are we expecting a YAML reader / writer to be core anytime soon?
This I would like to shelve the discussion of what subset of YAML
to use for
the moment if you don't mind, until we've worked out all this other
surrounding detail. I feel it will be another long process.
OK, we can shelve it but I'll leave you with a parting thought: my
baseline for YAMLish is that
$b -> YAMLish -> $c
is_deeply $a, $c;
should be semantically identical to
is_deeply $a, $b;
In other words YAMLish needs to losslessly round-trip whatever
structures is_deeply understands.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
