On 9/3/07, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to force this in tandem? Ie. when one of the keys
> > has to be quoted, the other is always quoted also? Because I'd
> > hate to see this:
> >
> > wanted: elbow
> > found: 'el
--- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If string data was *always* quoted and numeric data never was
> (assuming
> > it's really numeric), then most of the issues raised in this thread
> > would go away.
>
> Define string data and numeric data. :-)
>
> IOW, is 0E0 string or numeric?
This c
On 1 Sep 2007, at 18:36, Ovid wrote:
[snip]
How about something more direct: harness_supports_tap_diagnostics();
I thought about something more verbose, but I confess that I like to
avoid longer function names. They irritate people. Still, maybe it's
worth it in this case.
[snip]
++ for l
On 9/4/07, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If string data was *always* quoted and numeric data never was
> > (assuming
> > > it's really numeric), then most of the issues raised in this thread
> > > would go away.
> >
> > Define string data and nume
--- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the solution is to leave it up to a given language as to
> whether they discriminate or not, document how they can, and leave it
> alone. Its not going to be easy to do in some languages, so they
> probably dont have to or want to care, and in the
On 4 Sep 2007, at 09:24, demerphq wrote:
I really think this is an area where the more you think about it the
more problems you discover and the less you think about it the less
likely you will encounter any problems at all.
I think that's about right. I don't think it's a showstopper for us.
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> Is it possible to force this in tandem? Ie. when one of the keys
> has to be quoted, the other is always quoted also? Because I’d
> hate to see this:
>
> wanted: elbow
> found: 'elbow '
>
> For simple cases like this one it’s livable, but if the data gets
> more
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-02 09:32]:
>> What you're thinking of is RFC3339 which is more describing a
>> state of affairs on the Internet then anything else.
>
> Actually RFC 3339 date and time formats are best practice at the
> IETF/IESG.
I got RC 333
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think of this?
> http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/TAP_datetime
Works for me.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
Personal blog -
On 4 Sep 2007, at 22:41, Ovid wrote:
What do you think of this?
http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/TAP_datetime
Works for me.
Yup, looks fine.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2007, at 22:41, Ovid wrote:
>>> What do you think of this?
>>> http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/TAP_datetime
>>
>> Works for me.
>
> Yup, looks fine.
Maybe we should start noting this on the wiki? Sign proposals with a
(Mediawiki signature).
http://te
11 matches
Mail list logo
