On 08/04/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007, at 01:11, Fergal Daly wrote:
> - it is 1-level deep grouping and so it requires another layer for
> degrouping. Separating the degrouping from the TAP parser confines it
> to a single level of grouping. If you're going to do grouping, you
> should go all the way and make it nestable and let a block be just
> another kind of test that happens to have subtests and possibly a
> plan. This requires putting it in the TAP parser.

It is nestable.

begin
begin
ok
end
begin
not ok
end
end

Yes, I said it was nestable but my point is that it once you start
nesting you can no longer have the demuxer separate from the TAP
parser. So now it's tightly coupled with TAP which was supposedly a
bad thing.

>
> then if you go and make it nestable:
> - the white-space indentation is not backwards compatible but if you
> remove it then the whole things becomes far less human-readable.

I added that to the example only for readability.

TAP's readability is a deliberate feature, any modifications should
retain that readability. You must have some kind of indentation.
Indenting by extending the number is somewhat backwards compatible.

> - it's difficult to identify a test. You could say "the 2nd test of
> the the 3rd block of the 5th block" but it would be much nicer to say
> test 5.3.2 in which case you may as well put that identifier in the
> stream as the uique identifier of the test ie the test number, this
> has the added benefit that when I want to find it in the output, I can
> go straight to it.

What does that leading 5 tell you? How do you relate the (presumably
synthetic) numbering to a specific test?

The begin/end syntax allows both begin and end to be followed by
descriptive text. Since that text can say things like which file the
tests came from it should make it pretty easy to go to a particular
test.

Since I'm suggesting that each block is a test with a name, you get
this too. As for being particularly esy to go to a particular test
that depends on the depth of the nesting,

F

--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net


Reply via email to