Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> Sat, 31 January 2009 22:30 UTC

Message-Id: <8663738C-A8A5-41A9-A065-20BF1C97C2B5@kineticode.com>
From: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>
To: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4984B200.6060907@pobox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:30:10 -0800
References: <4984B200.6060907@pobox.com>
Cc: tap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: tap-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tap-bounces@ietf.org

On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:

> It complicates the grammar to allow "ok 4 # SKIP" but make "not ok 4  
> # SKIP" a
> syntax error and adds in another special case for the parser.  With  
> "not ok #
> SKIP" as normal syntax the skip directive has no effect on the  
> truthiness of
> the test.
>
> Consensus?  Generally prefer failure-with-warning over parse error  
> for valid
> but sort of nonsense output?

+1

David
_______________________________________________
tap mailing list
tap@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap

[tap] Parse error vs failure Michael G Schwern
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Aristotle Pagaltzis
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure David E. Wheeler
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Michael Peters
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Steffen Schwigon
Re: [tap] [offlist] Re: Parse error vs failure Aristotle Pagaltzis
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Ovid
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Steffen Schwigon
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Aristotle Pagaltzis
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Andy Armstrong
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Andy Armstrong
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Michael G Schwern
Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Steffen Schwigon