First off, I am pretty much in agreement with chromatic here. What
follows is why.
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Human readability of the raw diagnostics is important.
>
> I don't find these big blobs of YAML particularly readable when
> compared to the freeform diagnostics we ha
--- Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Java attempted to deal with this with the 'com.foo.bar' syntax. It
> works reasonably well, though it's limited. Perl 6 has tried a
> different, more correct, yet heavyweight approach. RDF uses
> namespaces
> to unambiguously describe their ontologies. Pro
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for why it'll work with TAP, with a few exceptions (exit_status,
> or
> whatever we decide to call it, is currently the only one), diagnostic
> keys do
> not effect test parsing. It's not a show stopper. At worst, a
> displayer that
> has
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Given that even unstructured diagnostics have never actually
> appeared in TAP
> documents before, my guess is "No, everyone's arguing out of
> ignorance",
This is not true at all. If you rephrase this slightly:
Given that even unstructured diagno
On Apr 17, 2008, at 22:44, chromatic wrote:
I don't know how to put this any more clearly, so I'm content to let
this
thread die here and watch TAP v15 careen off into crazy town.
(Alternately,
I could be the one careening off into crazy town, but at the risk of
making
an argument from aut
On Friday 18 April 2008 10:34:02 David E. Wheeler wrote:
> You've convinced me: there should be nothing to distinguish official
> from unofficial keys at all, until or unless it actually becomes an
> issue.
>
> Funny how this tends to be the opposite of the conclusion that Ovid
> draws from your a
I'd like to know if anyone has a way to make Devel::Cover work properly with
the MakeMaker tests. Currently I get bizarre results from cover -test (see
below) where it thinks there's no lines in the modules. This is probably the
result of MakeMaker running so many perl subprocesses. I'd imagi
On Apr 18, 2008, at 10:50, chromatic wrote:
My argument was complex: solve the real problem or don't solve it.
The in
between position is silly and won't make anyone happy. (However,
the first
person to suggest RDF triples gets a lecture from *all* parties.)
Yes. The choices, as I see th
On Friday 18 April 2008 20.06.32 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I'd like to know if anyone has a way to make Devel::Cover work properly
> with the MakeMaker tests. Currently I get bizarre results from cover -test
> (see below) where it thinks there's no lines in the modules. This is
> probably the re
On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Ovid wrote:
Thinking about this more, consider this ugly compromise:
---
file: t/resource.t
line: 23
results:
have: 3
want: { "foo":3 }
tags:
- api
- database
user:
com.foo.bar:
have-type: xml
want-type: j
On Friday 18 April 2008 20:18:40 Chris Dolan wrote:
> How can the above example occur? How do two different user tags get
> applied to a single test result? In the Test::Exceptions vs.
> Test::Deep examples mentioned earlier (IIRC) I can see how a single
> TAP *stream* can have conflicting tags,
On Apr 18, 2008, at 10:24 PM, chromatic wrote:
On Friday 18 April 2008 20:18:40 Chris Dolan wrote:
How can the above example occur? How do two different user tags get
applied to a single test result? In the Test::Exceptions vs.
Test::Deep examples mentioned earlier (IIRC) I can see how a sing
12 matches
Mail list logo
