The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
answer on these tests. I was going to say:
What you need is
package MyOtherString;
use overload
'""' => sub { shift->[0] },
fallback => 1;
sub new {
my ($class, $val) = @_;
bless [ $val ], $class;
}
But actually both versions will still give the identical answers except this
time they will both say the opposite of what they said for the original
tests,
F
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 10:52, Tony Bowden wrote:
> There's been a protracted discussion on the code-review mailing list
> about the behaviour of is_deeply in Test::More, which really belongs
> here or p5p.
>
> For the most part it was sparked by a disagreement about what should
> happen when comparing overloaded objects (but also then impacts on tied
> objects), but has become a more philosophical question about the nature
> of deepness :)
>
> I won't bore everyone with the details, but I would like to carry out
> a pop quiz.
>
> Consider the following two classes:
>
> package MyString;
> use overload
> '""' => sub { shift->{value} },
> fallback => 1;
>
> sub new {
> my ($class, $val) = @_;
> bless { value => $val }, $class;
> }
>
> and
>
> package MyOtherString;
>
> use base 'MyString';
>
> Now consider two objects of those classes:
>
> my $str1 = MyString->new("Cat");
> my $str2 = MyOtherString->new("Cat");
>
> We now have two objects which overload to the string "Cat".
>
> So, should the following tests pass or fail?
>
> 1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> 2) is $str1, $str2;
> 3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> 4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
>
>
> Tony
>
>
