Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> [2009-02-19 21:15]:
>> As TAP has no formal means to express that, and I'm not waiting
>> for a TAP extension, any TAP reader will need extra logic to
>> figure that out. So worrying about that seems moot.
>
> If it takes a lot longer and TB offers subplans in the meantime,
> people will want to be able to get the information back out of
> their TAP streams before formal subplans become part of the
> syntax. So worrying about how they will process the output of a
> stream containing implicit subplans seems entirely appropriate.
And we come back to the beginning: it's all going to be ad hoc anyway until
TAP formalizes it. Fine for eyeballing. If someone wants to scrape the
information out they can do it from the description (with the usual caveats
about scraping).
I have a feeling we're arguing about two different things. Or we're arguing
about a plan that was already rejected. Or it's gotten very meta and we're
arguing about concepts.
I plan on doing this:
use Test::More;
plan( add => 1 );
pass("First test");
plan( add => 2 );
pass("Second");
pass("Third");
done_testing(5);
to produce this:
ok 1 - First test
ok 2 - sub-plan at foo.t line 3
ok 3 - Second
ok 4 - Third
ok 5 - sub-plan at foo.t line 6
1..5
Hmm, maybe it should be subplan() instead of plan(). That lines up with the
output, and it allows a subplan description.
subplan(2, "frobnitzing the widget");
# ok 4 - subplan: frobnitzing the widget
--
164. There is no such thing as a were-virgin.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
