Re: File/Line # (Was: IETF)

* David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 19:25]: > I don't believe it's possible to get that info in JS, is it? Just seen: http://eriwen.com/javascript/js-stack-trace/ Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: File/Line # (Was: IETF)

On Aug 18, 2008, at 15:08, Ovid wrote: --- On Mon, 18/8/08, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But I don't have file or line numbers in Test.Builder (JavaScript). I don't believe it's possible to get that info in JS, is it? This is precicely part of the reason we want "non-Perl" i

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

# from Michael G Schwern # on Monday 18 August 2008 16:55: >>>  The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use.  Extension >>> discussion should be >>> orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization process. >> >> That's the stance I took in Copenhagen last week.  I was unanimously >> voted down.

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 17:35]: > I prefer JSON aesthetically apart from any technical > considerations. I don't actually find YAML all that > readable. To programmers' eyes JSON looks more like > code - presumably because it is :) YAML requires less quoting and backslas

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

Ovid wrote: > --- On Tue, 19/8/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think we should start the process by specifying TAP >> version 12 aka core TAP. >> The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use. Extension >> discussion should be >> orthogonal so as not to stall the standardi

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

--- On Tue, 19/8/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should start the process by specifying TAP > version 12 aka core TAP. > The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use. Extension > discussion should be > orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization process. That

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

Ovid wrote: > --- On Mon, 18/8/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> YAML has several important things that JSON is lacking. > > Without going into detail, I'll just say that you raise some valid points. I > agree with some and not with others, but we should defer this discussi

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YAML has several important things that JSON is lacking. Without going into detail, I'll just say that you raise some valid points. I agree with some and not with others, but we should defer this discussion until the IETF list

Re: File/Line # (Was: IETF)

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I don't have file or line numbers in Test.Builder > (JavaScript). I > don't believe it's possible to get that info in JS, > is it? This is precicely part of the reason we want "non-Perl" implementations represented. The co

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

On Aug 18, 2008, at 07:03, Ovid wrote: Those are certainly important issues, but JSON will make some of them trivial. The YAML types, embedded documents and the "one format to rule them all" concept is precisely what makes it unsuitable for TAP. That's a damned shame because if there was

File/Line # (Was: IETF)

On Aug 18, 2008, at 02:53, Ovid wrote: Also, pulling in people developing TAP for things other than Perl would be good (such as David Wheeler's PostgreSQL work. That came up a few times as uri/line# diagnostic information isn't quite as applicable there). Well, it would be handy if I cou

Re: random thought regarding the discussion of the formatting of ascii-art

# from Ovid # on Monday 18 August 2008 09:14: >Moving forward is so much more satisfying than "did not/did too" > discussions. Now if only there were somewhere to move forward to. My thought was that a more sophisticated presentation of complicated have/want could be accomplished using a pair

Re: jpeg TAP Diagnostics?

# from Ovid # on Monday 18 August 2008 03:50: >JSON is fairly well implemented and new implementations are trivial. >  This is not true for YAML.  Trying to define a minimum standard of > YAML for extended TAP is a quagmire.  With JSON, we can punt and just > point to a fairly well-established JSO

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

Ovid wrote: > One issue which arose at YAPC::EU was the problem with machine-readable TAP > diagnostics. > Since they're not yet implemented, we can change them. The problem we wound up with was > that we have two things to specify: core TAP and extended TAP. Core TAP is simple > (well, uh, mos

Re: random thought regarding the discussion of the formatting of ascii-art

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > out who's to blame? Moving forward is so much more > satisfying "did not/did too" discussions. more satisfying THAN "did not/did too" discussions. And learning how to write is more satisfying still. Cheers, Ov ... -- Buy the book

Re: random thought regarding the discussion of the formatting of ascii-art

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > # from David Cantrell > # on Monday 18 August 2008 04:07: > > >> > get remote GUIs to work > >> > >> That's not what I said ;-)  See, the remote ... > > > >You were talking about ... So yes, it

Re: random thought regarding the discussion of the formatting of ascii-art

# from David Cantrell # on Monday 18 August 2008 04:07: >> > get remote GUIs to work >> >> That's not what I said ;-)  See, the remote X session is a protocol > >You were talking about doing GUI stuff.  You mentioned running tests > on another machines.  So yes, it is what you said. No, I didn't

Re: IETF

Aristotle Pagaltzis said: * Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 15:30]: Schwern, I can't tell from reading the references you provide whether or what you're saying is correct, but I *think* so. I think your initial mail was misleading and Schwern promptly misunderstood you. What Salve brou

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

On 18 Aug 2008, at 11:50, Ovid wrote: Thoughts? +1 I prefer JSON aesthetically apart from any technical considerations. I don't actually find YAML all that readable. To programmers' eyes JSON looks more like code - presumably because it is :) -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Dominique Quatravaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > YAML::Tiny seems to do everything that JSON does, so I > must now eat crow (nom, nom, nom, gag). > > Well, hope you found it tasty, but JSON is still a > reasonable > alternative to consider if non-Perl implementations are >

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YAML::Tiny seems to do everything that JSON does, so I must now eat crow > (nom, nom, nom, gag). Well, hope you found it tasty, but JSON is still a reasonable alternative to consider if non-Perl implementations are better than YAM

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And for those who would argue for YAML::Tiny as our > spec, it > > already has limitations that hit us at the BBC. > > In what way, and why would that be relevant to TAP? Would > JSON not have those same limitations? I was a

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ++ > There are some other things to work out though, like how do > we decide > that a JSON doc has begun (YAML has the nice --- thing), > etc. YAML does > support things that JSON does not (types, embedded > documents, etc) but >

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are we still considering human readability a goal for TAP? That For basic TAP, I think it should be a goal. For "extended" TAP, I think the goal is more about machine-readable output so that diagnostics can be collec

Re: IETF

--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think your initial mail was misleading and Schwern > promptly > misunderstood you. What Salve brought up is not that the > *working group* needs to attend IETF meetings thrice yearly, but > *the chairman* of the WG does. Ah,

Re: IETF

* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 15:30]: > Schwern, I can't tell from reading the references you provide > whether or what you're saying is correct, but I *think* so. I think your initial mail was misleading and Schwern promptly misunderstood you. What Salve brought up is not that the *worki

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

* Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 15:30]: > YAML does support things that JSON does not (types, embedded > documents, etc) but I've been in doubt that we'd ever need > those things for TAP anyway. That would be useful if any of the YAML producers were capable of serialising tricky d

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 12:55]: > First of all, read that thoroughly. That should take you a few > days. I know, right? When I mention that I always that the YAML spec is much more complex than the XML spec and the XML Namespaces spec put together. (Despite the XML and Namespaces sp

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

Ovid wrote: Thoughts? ++ There are some other things to work out though, like how do we decide that a JSON doc has begun (YAML has the nice --- thing), etc. YAML does support things that JSON does not (types, embedded documents, etc) but I've been in doubt that we'd ever need those things f

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thoughts? Likewise, agreed. What's the latest consensus on the "best" pure-perl JSON module? And ditto for JSON via XS? David

Re: IETF

(Now copying to appropriate lists, hence the response not being trimmed) --- On Mon, 18/8/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ovid wrote: > > One issue Salve raised is that the IETF apparently > requires *physical* meetings three times > > a year. Short of people individually pony

Re: JSON TAP Diagnostics?

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:50:00AM -0700, Ovid wrote: > Thoughts? Agreement. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net

Re: random thought regarding the discussion of the formatting of ascii-art

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:43:00AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > # from David Cantrell > > Please don't take focus away from the window I'm working in.  Please > > don't cover up any of the many windows I've carefully arranged so that > > I can see everything I need. > I would say it only appears if

JSON TAP Diagnostics?

Hi all, One issue which arose at YAPC::EU was the problem with machine-readable TAP diagnostics. Since they're not yet implemented, we can change them. The problem we wound up with was that we have two things to specify: core TAP and extended TAP. Core TAP is simple (well, uh, mostly), but

Re: IETF

Ovid wrote: > One issue Salve raised is that the IETF apparently requires *physical* > meetings three times > a year. Short of people individually ponying up the money, this suggests some form of > sponsorship. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I roll to disbelieve. It seems not like the IETF

Re: Error report for Padre 0.05

Gabor Szabo wrote: > Looking at this report I am not sure why does it fail and how to fix it > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2041140.html > > Besides, AFAIK PAR::Packer is not one of the prereqs of Padre so what are > these > messages regarding PAR::Packer? > > Know

IETF

Hi all, At YAPC::EU, Salve, Aristotle, Andy (Armstrong) and myself hammered out a rough draft of some of the issues we'll need to cover with an IETF proposal. I'll try to post those when I can, but right now I'm at work and my laptop is not. One issue Salve raised is that the IETF apparently r

Error report for Padre 0.05

Looking at this report I am not sure why does it fail and how to fix it http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2041140.html Besides, AFAIK PAR::Packer is not one of the prereqs of Padre so what are these messages regarding PAR::Packer? Known uninstallable prereqs PAR-Packer-0