Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>> ok 1
>>> not ok 2
>>> 1..2
>>> # this comment is acceptable
>>> ... but what about this?
>> Shouldn't that last line always be an error wherever it occurs?
>
> For purposes of forward compata
- Original Message
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ok 1
> > not ok 2
> > 1..2
> > # this comment is acceptable
> > ... but what about this?
>
> Shouldn't that last line always be an error wherever it occurs?
For purposes of forward compatability, it's been my
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:35, Ovid wrote:
> Since the parser is not supposed to do anything with junk lines, I assume
> that junk after the plan is also allowed? For right now, I'll assume it's
> not and just add support later.
>
> ok 1
> not ok 2
> 1..2
> # this comment i
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ovid wrote:
> > Which is correct? I'm assuming that comments *are*
> > allowed after the plan?
>
> Comments are exempt.
Since the parser is not supposed to do anything with junk lines, I assume that
junk after the plan i
Ovid wrote:
I've run into a possible bug with TAPx::Parser. According to
http://search.cpan.org/dist/TAP/TAP.pm#The_plan:
The plan cannot appear in the middle of the output,
nor can it appear more than once.
I'm getting parse errors because comments are output after the plan:
TAPx-Pa
I've run into a possible bug with TAPx::Parser. According to
http://search.cpan.org/dist/TAP/TAP.pm#The_plan:
The plan cannot appear in the middle of the output,
nor can it appear more than once.
I'm getting parse errors because comments are output after the plan:
TAPx-Parser $ perl -MT
