Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Andy Lester
They won't always be ignored. I want them returned in the Test::Harness::Point object. *sigh* But you're not going to parse the contents. Right. -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 08:02:19PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > >I don't care if they're called "Truman Capote", they're lines whose > >contents > >are to be ignored. The harness ignores them. They're comments. > > They won't always be ignored. I want them returned in the > Test::Harness::Po

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Andy Lester
I don't care if they're called "Truman Capote", they're lines whose contents are to be ignored. The harness ignores them. They're comments. They won't always be ignored. I want them returned in the Test::Harness::Point object. xoxo, Andy -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petd

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:11:45PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > >There was no protocol change here because there never was a protocol. > >Test::Builder::Tester parses comments! BAD! EVIL! WRONG! > > First, there's not a lot T::B::T can do in this situation. One of the > things you want to test

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Nik Clayton
Michael G Schwern wrote: On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: Define a new version of TAP with a single change. Specifically, emit a version number in the TAP output that describes the version of TAP that's being emitted. While this may be an interesting idea, its irr

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.62

2005-10-09 Thread Steve Peters
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 11:12:59AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 11:34:50AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote: > > I've just added this to bleadperl. > > With or without Test::Builder::Tester? > So I don't continue the breakage, with Test::Builder::Tester. For the longer ter

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.62

2005-10-09 Thread Steve Peters
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 01:38:06AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-Simple-0.62.tar.gz > or > http://svn.schwern.org/svn/CPAN/Test-Simple/trunk > or > a CPAN near you. > I've just added this to bleadperl. Thanks, Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 02:07:30PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > > PS: As an example of something I'd like to see 'cleaned up' in TAP -- I > > have a lifelong aversion to 'syntactic comments', i.e., comments that > > actually have a meaning to something parsing them. Accordingly, I'd > > love to se

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread chromatic
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 18:26 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > PS: As an example of something I'd like to see 'cleaned up' in TAP -- I > have a lifelong aversion to 'syntactic comments', i.e., comments that > actually have a meaning to something parsing them. Accordingly, I'd > love to see "not ok 2

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Joe McMahon
PS: As an example of something I'd like to see 'cleaned up' in TAP -- I have a lifelong aversion to 'syntactic comments', i.e., comments that actually have a meaning to something parsing them. Accordingly, I'd love to see "not ok 2 # TODO bend space and time" become "todo 2 # bend space and ti

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.62

2005-10-09 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 11:34:50AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote: > I've just added this to bleadperl. With or without Test::Builder::Tester? -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Insulting our readers is part of our business model. http://somethingpos

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > Define a new version of TAP with a single change. > > Specifically, emit a version number in the TAP output that describes the > version of TAP that's being emitted. While this may be an interesting idea, its irrelevant to the TBT pr

Re: Test::More & Test::Builder::Tester

2005-10-09 Thread Nik Clayton
Michael G Schwern wrote: I don't have a long term solution for users of test_diag(). I'm entertaining ideas. "Don't change the failure output" is not one of them. One temporary hack is to parse the test_diag() input, look for attempts to match the old Test::More diagnostics and translate it in