David Wheeler wrote: > On Apr 7, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> If you have isDeeply() there's little point to the eq* salad. > > > Hrm, fair enough. I'll comment them out, then...
well, a few thoughts here... as someone familiar with T::M and not javascript, were I to try to use this it's an additional barrier to call it "Test::More in JavaScript" but not provide _the exact same functions_ as Test::More. now before everyone starts slamming this let me explain... as we shaped the php T::M port we started hitting a few things that were perlish but not phpish. isa_ok() is a good example - isa() is a perl method but php calls it something else. so, what we plan on doing (or did, depending on the function) is implementing isa_ok() for the perl folks and aliasing it to foo_ok() (I forget what) for the php folks. I think we carried over use_ok() even though php doesn't distinguish between use and require in the perl sense, for example. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, really, the target audience for these ports is primarily people who are already Test::More savvy. so, taking away eq_array() or calling something isDeeply() just makes my life as a perl-first developer more difficult. ok, marginally so, but still... the secondary audience are folks who are not Test::More savvy but who program in $language. for them, providing functions with names like isDeeply() is more idiomatic, so it's a good idea to offer them too - we should make them as comfortable as possible so they adopt our awesome tools. anwyay, just a few random thoughts. I don't ever plan on using javascript so it really doesn't apply to me anyway :) oh, and david... you really are crazy ;) --Geoff
