[tap-l] Nested TAP

[Steffen Schwigon]

Andy Armstrong <andy at hexten.net> writes:
> On 14 Apr 2008, at 21:23, Ovid wrote:
>> By requiring a summary line, we *gain* the simplicity of always having
>> the top level TAP stream parseable without forcing the consumer to
>> introduce complications necessary to parse nested TAP.  With my
>> solution, determining if the top level core TAP stream passed or  
>> failed
>> is trivial and *that* I think is what we should be focusing on.
>
>
> OK, that's probably another axis along which we can disagree :)
>
> I favour keeping the overall complexity down - but to the extent that  
> we have features that are tricky to implement I'd like that complexity  
> to be in the consumer. In my view the utility of TAP is dependent more  
> on the ease of writing producers than consumers. Users of other  
> languages will derive more benefit from being able to write a producer  
> in their native language.

I fully agree.

Beeing so simple to produce is *the* killer feature of TAP. I can
convince practically everyone to take part in a to-be-built
infrastructure where he only has to produce TAP as simple as it is now
from whatever strange language he might use. And convincing people to
use something is IMHO a really important aspect.

Steffen
-- 
Steffen Schwigon <ss5 at renormalist.net>
Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/>
Deutscher Perl-Workshop <http://www.perl-workshop.de/>