On Friday 28 February 2003 12:23, Adrian Howard wrote: > Comments: > > - I'd prefer is_set rather than is_math_set
So would I but eq_set is already taken by Test::More and I want to name the is_ and the eq_ functions conistently > - I'd like shallow comparison options as well as deep ones. Most of the > time I'm interested in object identity rather than structural equality. > Maybe have: is_bag, is_set, is_deep_bag, is_deep_set Can do. > - I'm not sure that ignoring duplicates for is_math_set will always be > the right thing to do. When I've wanted set comparisons duplicates > would be indicative of an error. Having both options would be nice. Ignoring dupes is what a set does. I think the bag comaprisons are what you're after. Bag comparison will let you test for a specific number of copies of each element so is_bag($thing, [$a, $b, $c]) will do what you want, there must be exactly 1 copy of $a, $b and $c and no more than 1, F
