A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-11 12:55]:
>> Why does this need a TAP mod? Why not let the producer handle
>> it?
>
> Because then all you can do is a global trailing plan which is
> only half a step up from no plan?
Yep. And why is that a problem?
> And if the tests and plan disagree, how do you localise the group
> in which they diverged? It’s easy as falling off a log if you
> have sub-plans.
plan add => 2;
pass;
pass;
pass;
plan add => 3;
pass;
pass;
ok 1
ok 2
no ok 3
# Planned 2 sub-tests at line 1 but ran 3!
ok 4
ok 5
# Planned 3 sub-tests at line 6 but only ran 2!
1..5
The TAP producer can do it.
> I thought the benefits of local plans are dead obvious.
When you're talking about extending a protocol that everyone has to obey
forever and ever, you try not to leave things to "obvious".
