David Cantrell wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:16:33AM +0800, Gaurav Vaidya wrote:
>
>> Based on the recent questions on the TAP mailing list asking about the
>> significance of "1..", I wonder if this could be simplified to:
>> TAP version 13
>> 1..2 # Initialization
>> ok 1
>> ok 2
>> 3..6 # Testing individual feeds
>> ok 3
>> ok 4
>> ok 5
>> ok 6
>> 7..7 # Testing cleanup
>> ok 7
>> 0..0 # All done!
>
> Could it be simplified further like this?
>
> TAP version 13
> 1..2 # Initialization
> ok 1
> ok 2
> +4 # Testing individual feeds
> ok 3
> ok 4
> ok 5
> ok 6
> ...
>
> Although presumably it's up to Test::Something to turn my "plan four
> more tests" into "3..6" so from the user's point of view they're the
> same.
I'd be wary of making it too simple, as TAP streams often contain garbage and
you wouldn't want stray output from the code you're testing to be interpreted
as TAP.
Also, N..M lets us use a preexisting syntax, rather than coming up with Yet
Another special piece of grammar. Finally, it jives with the idea that the
plan is a range operator.
--
24. Must not tell any officer that I am smarter than they are, especially
if it's true.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
