Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - description"

[Steffen Schwigon <[e-mail]>]

Paul Johnson <[e-mail]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:55:06AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> 
>> > From: Michael G Schwern <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> > Test-Result     = Status [SP Test-Number] [SP Description]
>> >                    [SP "#" SP Directive [SP Reason]] EOL
>> > 
>> > to
>> > 
>> > Test-Result     = Status [SP Test-Number] [SP -] [SP Description]
>> >                    [SP "#" SP Directive [SP Reason]] EOL
>> > 
>> > The dash is simply ignored if it's there.
>> > 
>> > Yay or nay?
>> 
>> So everyone who's written a TAP producer in another language and
>> didn't see fit to add that dash will now be producing invalid TAP?
>
> I don't think so, since the dash is optional.  The only real
> complication I can see is if anyone actually does want to start the
> description with a dash, in which case they would now need two
> dashes.  TAP from those producers you mention above would have any
> dash prefix in the description silently eaten.  Still not ideal, but
> perhaps not the end of the world.

IMHO when the TAP grammar changes things that were stable for years
it's near to the end of the world.

I, for instance, evaluate test results via the description over *lots*
of archived TAP streams since nearly years. I don't want to become an
outlaw.

So I'm strongly with Ovid.

And I don't know why the grammar is about to be discussed at
all. Until now I thought we would only think about backwards
compatible extensions that fit into the currently "ignored non-tap"
design space.

It would be ok if we were inventing TAP for the first time, but with
this 20 years old thingie I would be very carefully.

Kind regards,
Steffen 
-- 
Steffen Schwigon <[e-mail]>
Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/>
German Perl-Workshop 2009 <http://www.perl-workshop.de/en/2009>
_______________________________________________
tap mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap