David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Feb 21, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> David E. Wheeler wrote: >>> Dot notation? >>> >>> ok 1.1 >>> ok 1.2 >>> ok 2.1 >>> 1..2 >> >> If you don't want any existing TAP parser to be able to read it and delay >> release until they do, sure! >> >> I am totally not waiting for TAP to work out sub-plan syntax. > > Yeah, I'm suggesting this more for a new version of TAP.
It won't work because it's not backwards compatible. Technically "ok 1.1" should be read as an unnumbered test with the description of "1.1". TAP::Parser reads "ok 1.1" as test #1 with the description of ".1" because it doesn't require spaces. In Oslo we tried to make this one work and be backwards compatible but never quite got it to work. http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Blocks I don't feel like dragging out the details at the moment. -- s7ank: i want to be one of those guys that types "s/j&jd//.^$ueu*///djsls/sm." and it's a perl script that turns dog crap into gold.
