[tap-l] What's with verbose rewriting the TAP?

[Michael G Schwern]

Ovid wrote:
>> I've just noticed another instance of "prove -v" rewriting the TAP so that
>> you're not really seeing what the test output.
> 
> Mea culpa.  I did that when I first wrote TAP::Parser to ensure a nice, consistent
> output showing the end-user what TAP::Parser is interpreting each TAP line as.
> 
> So yeah, I could see this being an issue.  Should we have --raw to show the original TAP?
> Or --normalize to show what TAP::Parser is intending?  I think Schwern is
right that we
> should show the actual output by default.  (/me wonders if this will break
any tools
> relying on the new parser)

You can throw in both --raw and --normalized to control verbose output with
verbose defaulting to --raw.  Normalizing the output is handy, it's just
surprising.


> And Schwern, is there a bug in your mail software?  Here's the to: line from the headers:
> 
>   To: Development at a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com,
>      of at a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com,
>     "TAPx:"@a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com:Parser <tapx-dev at hexten.net>

Looks like pobox mangled the headers.  Possibly confused by the double colons.
 I wouldn't be surprised if it's some obscure mail header syntax.  I should
probably quote it to be safe.  This is what went out:

To: Development of TAPx::Parser <tapx-dev at hexten.net>

Anyhow, how did we land on the IETF TAP list?


-- 
31. Not allowed to let sock puppets take responsibility for any of my
    actions.
    -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
           http://skippyslist.com/list/