Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

On Wednesday 16 April 2008 22:57:21 David E. Wheeler wrote: > In principal I completely agree with you, chromatic (that is, I agree > with the principal you espouse here; my agreement is not purely > theoretical ;-)). But how does that work in practice? Specifically > with regard to YAML diagnosti

Re: User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

* chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-17 18:45]: > IETF's "no standards without at least two implementations, and > one of them public" rule That’s the W3C, actually. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Presentation on Perl testing to Madison.pm

Chris Dolan wrote: Interesting reactions: * People were appalled that Test::Class invokes methods in alphabetic order instead of lexical order It seems odd to me that people would be so concerned about the order of execution, given the methods should be able to be executed in any order. Any

Re: Presentation on Perl testing to Madison.pm

--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems odd to me that people would be so concerned about the order > of > execution, given the methods should be able to be executed in any > order. Any > idea why that was an issue? It's an issue when you have multiple startup/setup/teardow

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

chromatic wrote: On Wednesday 16 April 2008 22:57:21 David E. Wheeler wrote: In principal I completely agree with you, chromatic (that is, I agree with the principal you espouse here; my agreement is not purely theoretical ;-)). But how does that work in practice? Specifically with regard to YA

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

On Thursday 17 April 2008 15:16:53 Michael G Schwern wrote: > chromatic wrote: > > That's my suggestion. Figure out the minimal set of keys that we expect > > to use in the near future and reserve those. Document them. Suggest > > that we might add more keys later, if there's a rough consensus

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

chromatic wrote: We'd like folks to be able to add their own keys as they need without first wondering whether it might be useful for others or worrying if we might add a key of the same name, but different functionality, later. Thus the separation of local from official keys. This part I thin

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

On Thursday 17 April 2008 16:17:48 Michael G Schwern wrote: > chromatic wrote: > >> We'd like folks to be able to add their own keys as they need without > >> first wondering whether it might be useful for others or worrying if we > >> might add a key of the same name, but different functionality

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

chromatic wrote: On Thursday 17 April 2008 16:17:48 Michael G Schwern wrote: chromatic wrote: We'd like folks to be able to add their own keys as they need without first wondering whether it might be useful for others or worrying if we might add a key of the same name, but different function

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

On Thursday 17 April 2008 17:56:25 Michael G Schwern wrote: > We're working around the same issue Perl 5 is having adding new keywords. > In Perl 5, since keywords and user-defined subroutines share the same > space, we can't add a new keyword without risking clashing with a > user-defined subrou

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

Executive summary: User key collision is not a show stopper. chromatic wrote: On Thursday 17 April 2008 17:56:25 Michael G Schwern wrote: We're working around the same issue Perl 5 is having adding new keywords. In Perl 5, since keywords and user-defined subroutines share the same space, we

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

On Thursday 17 April 2008 19:10:21 Michael G Schwern wrote: > As for why it'll work with TAP, with a few exceptions (exit_status, or > whatever we decide to call it, is currently the only one), diagnostic keys > do not effect test parsing. It's not a show stopper. At worst, a > displayer that ha

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

chromatic wrote: On Thursday 17 April 2008 19:10:21 Michael G Schwern wrote: As for why it'll work with TAP, with a few exceptions (exit_status, or whatever we decide to call it, is currently the only one), diagnostic keys do not effect test parsing. It's not a show stopper. At worst, a displ

Re: Presentation on Perl testing to Madison.pm

On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: Chris Dolan wrote: Interesting reactions: * People were appalled that Test::Class invokes methods in alphabetic order instead of lexical order It seems odd to me that people would be so concerned about the order of execution, given th

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

On Thursday 17 April 2008 20:21:52 Michael G Schwern wrote: > chromatic wrote: > > If TAP v15 adds a > > new reserved key, anyone who deliberately upgrades may need to modify > > both the producer and consumer to deal with the collision, if that person > > even cares. > I don't understand. Ther

Re: [tap-l] User Supplied YAML Diagnostic Keys: Descriptive Version

chromatic wrote: If TAP v15 adds a new reserved key, anyone who deliberately upgrades may need to modify both the producer and consumer to deal with the collision, if that person even cares. I don't understand. There can be no collision. Official TAP keys all start with a lower case letter.