On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > demerphq wrote: > > On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure > >>equivalence. I'd like comments on it. > > > > > > Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial > > position (why is accuracy and correctness controversial?) i do beleive > > Accuracy and correctness are Good. Breaking backwards compatibility is Bad.
Maintaining erroneous behaviour in the Perl _standard_ test suite in the name of backwards compatibility is IMO even Worse. Overall this change will proabably catch some bugs, and only affect a small number of people. The breakage IMO is acceptable as the long term result will be a better test suite and less bugs as the people depending on is_deeply() to work as it says will suddenly find that it does. > > it is important that this is debated outside of just the perl-qa list > > (its not that high traffic or visibility IMO) so I have taken the > > liberty of starting a thread on Perlmonks about this. It is at > > http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=471639. > > Ohh, that'll make schwern happy :) Heh. One day hopefully Schwern will get over his apparent prejudice about the place. > > > I also beleive that as Test::More is core it has certain obligations > > that mean that this issue should probably also be discussed on p5p. > > > > But for now lets see what happens. The motivation of all of us Im sure > > is the best interests fo the Perl community who consider Test::More to > > be a critical module whose quality and standards are vital to the > > ongoing success of the Perl world. > > > > After all this is the perl quality assuarace list right? > > Of course it should be possible to test for referential equality, if you > need it, you need it bad, and nothing else will do. I don't think anyone > questions you on this. I don't, however, think it is feasible to make > is_deeply() do this, for historical reasons. Well, then is_deeply() should be deprecated and supported only for backwards compatibility and it should be replaced by proper technology. > I would add this new functionality via a new looks_like() or > is_deeply_ref() routine. No debate there: if people don't need it they > won't (have to) use it. Well, there does seem to be quite a bit of agreement that a new tool that does it properly should be added to T::M. At least thats the way it feels to me. -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
