--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > All* of the TAP I've ever seen has been transient data generated > by > > > one tool, processed by another tool, and almost immediately > discarded. > > > All of the Java I've ever seen doesn't make use of first class > > functions and therefore they're not very important. > > These are *generated* files. Are you in the practice of checking in > generated files -- and not just files generated deliberately as part > of a multi-stage > compilation or deployment process, but files generated as a temporary > byproduct of asking the question "Does the as it exists now work > correctly right now?"
I think I've missed something here. While the basic idea of testing is "yes/no", many organizations have far more needs than this. On a similar note, just because word processing is basically about words doesn't mean that Notepad is suits our needs. Are you objecting to the idea of extending TAP to suit the needs of others or are you objecting to the proposed extension? If the latter, do you have a counter-proposal? > Even in the few cases where you need to shuttle TAP documents back > and forth, the plan is to include version information in the document, > correct? Isn't > the point of including a version so that TAP consumers will be able > to consume the document correctly? Sort of. The idea of a version is that older consumers can read the TAP, but newer consumers can glean more information. (Unfortunately, several people in Oslo support a backwards-incompatible change to TAP, so even this simple concept might get thrown out the window) At the end of the day, Core TAP is too primitive to meet people's needs. We came really close in Oslo to finding a way to move forward on this and we need to keep up the momentum. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
