On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>
> > I wasn't suggesting that this should fail and wouldnt suggest it should
> > either.
> >
> > I was suggesting that
> >
> > my $a=[];
> > is_deeply([$a,$a],[[],[]])
>
> So doesn't that just come down to
> is_deeply([], [])
> failing?
>
> Can we really say that
> x=y; but x,x != y,y?
No we can't say that. And im not saying that. One [] is not the same
as another [] simply because they have the same notation (as we would
expect two 1's to be the same). It might be better to rewrite the []
so as to avoid this notational issue:
my $a=do { my @anon_array; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
is_deeply(
[$a,$a],
[do { my @anon_array; [EMAIL PROTECTED],
do { my @anon_array; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
);
Which i think makes it much more obvious that this doesnt come down to
> x=y; but x,x != y,y?
but rather
x=y, but x,x != y,z
cheers,
yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
