Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 9 Sep 2007, at 22:04, Ovid wrote: >> As I recall, we've hit the same problem with another module (POE?) and >> I'm thinking that extending the TAP grammar here might be the key. >> Specifically, consider this: >> >> 1..0 # SKIP some reason >> >> The '1..0' is 'skip all' and the 'SKIP' is redundant except that it >> allows us an easy way to provide a parseable skip reason. Perhaps we >> should allow comments on the plan? That allows the above to be 'skip >> all', doesn't give us a reason, but still parses. Any version of TAP >> with the TAP version embedded would be assumed to be more strict?
+1 -- Stabbing you in the face so you don't have to.
