[tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - description"
Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> Sat, 24 January 2009 02:07 UTC
Return-Path: <tap-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tap-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25B13A67C1; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:07:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDF03A67C1 for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:07:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76iaHuq2zcsg for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:07:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com [208.72.237.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E983A694D for <tap@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22081D26D for <tap@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from windhund.local (unknown [75.150.41.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E96A1D26C for <tap@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <497A77D0.8070500@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:07:12 -0800
From: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tap@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BB00A10A-E9BB-11DD-8409-BE78113D384A-02258300!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Subject: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - description"
X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <tap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/tap>
List-Post: <mailto:tap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tap-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tap-bounces@ietf.org
According to the standard, it's supposed to be this: ok 9 here is some descriptive text ok 10 and some more stuff But Test::More does this: ok 9 - here is some descriptive text ok 10 - and some more stuff Why? Because it's a whole lot easier to read. Technically the description is "- here is a some descriptive text". I would like that to not be so while still retraining the spacing. So, in the interest of human readability, I propose a small change to the grammar from: 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? -- 87. If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army http://skippyslist.com/list/ _______________________________________________ tap mailing list tap@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap
- [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - description" Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Ovid
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… H.Merijn Brand
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Paul Johnson
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Steffen Schwigon
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… David E. Wheeler
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Steffen Schwigon
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Steffen Schwigon
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Steffen Schwigon
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… H.Merijn Brand
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Michael Peters
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Leon Timmermans
- Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - descripti… Steffen Schwigon