On Friday 16 February 2007, Ovid wrote:
> Can anyone else comment on this? I understand exactly where Shlomi is
> coming from and I know that he's wrong in his thoughts, but there is
> certainly a difference of opinion regarding 'correct' behavior.
>
Actually, I wasn't claiming the current behavi
Can anyone else comment on this? I understand exactly where Shlomi is
coming from and I know that he's wrong in his thoughts, but there is
certainly a difference of opinion regarding 'correct' behavior.
> I find it unlikely that my code differs in interpreation from
> Test::Harness in
> this reg
On Thursday 15 February 2007, Ovid wrote:
> --- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
> > > TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
>
> I've figured it out and that's because TAPx::Parser 0.41 was buggy and
> the latest TAPx::Parser has
--- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
> > TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
I've figured it out and that's because TAPx::Parser 0.41 was buggy and
the latest TAPx::Parser has found a point where your code differs in
interpretat
On Thursday 15 February 2007, Ovid wrote:
> --- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least
> > the
> > bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
> > TAPx::Parser:
> >
> > <
> > sub is_ok {
> > my $self
--- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least
> the
> bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
> TAPx::Parser:
>
> <
> sub is_ok {
> my $self = shift;
>
> return if $self->is_unplanned; # <
On 15 Feb 2007, at 16:16, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least the
bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
TAPx::Parser:
<
sub is_ok {
my $self = shift;
return if $self->is_unplanned; # <---
# T
Hi all!
On 2/15/07, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least the
bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
TAP
Hi!
Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
<<<
shlomif:$trunk/modules/Test-Shlomif-Harness$ perl -Ilib t/test-harness.t
1..182
ok 1
ok 2 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 3 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 4 # skip don't apply t
