[960] Fault unknown TAP tokens in strict mode (V13+)

[Andy Armstrong]

On 16 Feb 2008, at 18:15, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> All new tap would have a known prefix?  That is, a v13+ parser  
> should be
> able to say "that is a TAP keyword, but I don't support it."

Kind of restrictive, no?

>> 2) It allows one to test things that print to STDOUT.
>> It doesn't solve #2.  One often doesn't have control over the code
>> they're testing, so it makes that impossible.
>
> Yes, something like system(wget ...), but where the command has
> no '--quiet' flag and the test is checking the side effect.  It would
> be a pain to have to wrap that sort of thing in IPC::Run.
>
>
> Perhaps a 'begin/end noise' token of some sort?

Yeah, I could go for that.

> I like the idea of TAP being stricter, but I'm not sure if it is
> warranted or desirable.


I can't parse that :) Why do you like it then?

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Hexten