On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:27, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-14 18:50]:
> > I think my point eluded everyone. Let me be very clear. > Not me, but I’m not surprised that so many people missed it. > After all, you did try to make it in as condescendingly > convoluted a way as possible. I don’t think your sarcasm was > called for in this particular discussion, at least. Yeah, much more than a sentence and people start to take me seriously. I think diagnostics have to go into the TAP stream at some point. I think expecting a harness to merge STDOUT and STDERR when it runs a test file is prone to errors. I think there are plenty of uses for harnesses where they don't have access to STDERR, whether that's because they have access only to the TAP stream or for some other good reason. (I rely on some of them, actually.) I think it's a great idea to put some sort of structure in the diagnostics to give failure information. I don't believe this is all possible without upgrading TAP producers and consumers. I do believe that this is possible in stages without breaking code or tests and with minor disruption to old TAP consumers. I'm happy to patch both of the Test::Builder ports I maintain to switch diag() over to STDOUT at any point, and I'm confident that it won't break anything. -- c
