Every test I could come up with worked - except add extra close tags. It liked extra close tags just fine - for example:

< b > < b > gar </b></b></i></i>

Also, this is proof of logic for most things. But you still have to handle the hard cases malformed <A HREF tags and TD and TR commands outside of tables.

---

<bold>

Yes, as Jon said, you have to use actual tags, not ones you've made up yourself!

it takes one closing tag as sufficient for any number of opening tags.

No it doesn't! I mean, no it shouldn't! What were the diagnostics?

It was a bit early when I coded the last bit. I'm happy that it's grabbing the tags and counting them and pushing and popping correctly, but I'm a bit confused about my control structure at the end.

Here's the logic (where A is the push/pop structure, add-a-tag, remove-a-tag in order and B is the Sum Of All Tags, checking that for every open there is a close.):

Result Diagnosis A equals zero, B equals zero Everything is fine. A greater than zero, B equals zero

Bad HTML, but probably not broken.
Tags aren't closed in order, but do all close.

A equals zero, B less than zero Bad HTML, but probably not broken.
All tags close, but extra closing tags found. A greater than zero, B greater than zero Broken.

Can someone translate that into an if/elseif/else for me? My brain's in a slump.

---

except add extra close tags

Ah, I get it. Extra close tags in the case where there was never an opener.

And this is why we have testing.

---

But on the other hand, I was very careful posting that table...

---

Can someone translate that into an if/elseif/else for me? My brain's in a slump.

If b greater than 0, broken.
elseif a greater than or equal to zero{
if a=b, fine
elseif a greater than 0, bad HTML, tags not closed in order
else, bad HTML, extra closing tags
}

I think. There's no a>0, b<0 option. Should there be?

---

There's no a>0, b<0 option.

Good question. That would be "tag opened but not closed in correct sequence, but more closing tags found overall than opening".

That could happen. Oh, oh, as could "a greater than one, b equals zero", which it's currently saying is OK.

Hmmm.

How about if I say I've coded up methods A and B and I just want you smart people to tell me what to do with them?

If I have two methods, with three possible outcomes each, that's actually nine cases, isn't it?

---

If I have two methods, with three possible outcomes each, that's actually nine cases, isn't it?

Yeah, but you're got that b greater than zero is always broken, so that brings it down to six cases (well, seven):

a>0, b=0
a=0, b=0
a<0, b=0
a>0, b<0
a=0, b<0
a<0, b<0

---

OK, this is really what it looks like:

A B Diagnosis 0 0 Everything is fine. 0 >0 Broken 0 <0   <0 0   <0 >0 Broken <0 <0   >0 0   >0 >0 Broken >0 <0  

fill in the blanks for me?

---

First blank: extra closing tags. Probably OK.
Second blank: I think this means tags aren't closed in order. I'm not entirely sure how A works, though, or what a<0 means practically.
Third blank: extra closing tags and tags not closed in order, I think.
Fourth blank: Tags not closed in order, but all close.
Fifth blank: extra closing tags and tags not closed in order.

(I'm not even going to try to put that in a table, because I know I'll break something.)

---

Oh this is just spiralling out of control, or at least it's gone too far for my brain to figure it out.

I just noticed that

<b>test test test <i>test</i></i>

causes the total tag count to come out to zero, because of course the too-many-b-tags is cancelled out by the not-enough-i-tags and so it's giving the all clear.

Brain Hurt. Need Alcohol. But -- Payday Tomorrow! What Do?

---