David E. Wheeler wrote:
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. T
Chris Dolan wrote:
I'm not on the tap-l list (why is this cross-posted to perl-qa???)
We're trying to move discussion of TAP to a broader, non-perl audience, thus
the non-perl TAP mailing list. Since most TAP discussion has been on perl-qa,
and since many of the people interested in TAP are
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Saturday 19 April 2008 08:15:
>The prefixing solution sucks, but it's all we have... and that's a bad
> place to be. Rather than arguing about a sucky solution, does anyone
> have another solution to offer?
I'm not sure what you mean by "prefixing"[1], or what sucks
# from Eric Wilhelm
# on Saturday 19 April 2008 09:07:
>Of course, I would want strict key checking to be off by default and
>enabled only by the 'strict' pragma. But conveniently: the pragma is
>declared by the tap stream (i.e. emitter.)
And further: strictness must be automatically disabled
On Apr 19, 2008, at 08:15, Michael G Schwern wrote:
#3 is just #2 following an existing cow path. In short, we have a
good idea that official vs user is going to be a problem. Is anyone
arguing it won't? We have a simple, elegant solution to it that
doesn't cause another problem. The cost
Michael G Schwern writes:
> David E. Wheeler wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Yes. The choices, as I see them, are:
> >
