On 9 Sep 2007, at 22:04, Ovid wrote:
As I recall, we've hit the same problem with another module (POE?) and
I'm thinking that extending the TAP grammar here might be the key.
Specifically, consider this:
1..0 # SKIP some reason
The '1..0' is 'skip all' and the 'SKIP' is redundant except that it
allows us an easy way to provide a parseable skip reason. Perhaps we
should allow comments on the plan? That allows the above to be 'skip
all', doesn't give us a reason, but still parses. Any version of TAP
with the TAP version embedded would be assumed to be more strict?
+1
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
