demerphq writes:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ... I'm of the opinion that is_deeply() is currently doing the right
> > thing ... Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
>
> I cant agree with this analysis. If you go down this route surprise
>
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
>
> To me 'deeply' implies recursing as deep as the data structure goes, not
> that there's a special rule for the top-level that's treated differently
> from the others.
Nobody is saying is_deeply shouldn't be deep. If I understand
correc
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
> > The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
> > treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
>
> Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it depends how you wish
> to look at it. If you just cons
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:28:30AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing and that these tests cannot
> > go. Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
>
> I cant agree with
On 7/1/05, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq writes:
>
> > On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ... I'm of the opinion that is_deeply() is currently doing the right
> > > thing ... Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
> >
> > I cant agr
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
demerphq writes:
> Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
> They are exclusive.
Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
different people are surprised by different things; whichever behaviour
is implemented some people are going to suffer un
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
> function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
> [$b,$c] to come out equal.
>
> Test::Deep is for tweaked deep comparisons.
Test::Deep d
demerphq wrote:
On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial
position (why is accuracy and correct
On 7/1/05, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
> > function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
> > [$b,$c] to come out equal.
> >
On 7/1/05, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq writes:
>
> > Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
> > They are exclusive.
>
> Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
> different people are surprised by different things; whichever
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 tha
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
>> > The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
>> > treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
>>
>> Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it de
What's going on with overloading in 0.60? The docs say it will compare
a string-overloaded object with a string but when I run the code below
I get
===
# x = stringy
not ok 1
# Failed test (over.pm at line 8)
Operation `eq': no method found,
left argument in overloaded package over
--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always thought of C as being about the 'shape' of a
> data
> structure. When you think of things in this way, then it seems
> obvious that given
>
> $a = [], $b = [], $c = []
>
> then [$a, $a] and [$b, $c] have substantially different shapes.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:57:51PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > demerphq wrote:
> > > 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 s
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:13:37PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:57:51PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > demerphq wrote:
> > > > it is important that this is debated outside of just the perl-qa list
> > > > (
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:28:29AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> So, just for the sake of argument, imagine I write a class where I
> periodically returns array refs to the user. I do this by building
> them every time they're called. Later, I realize that my methods are
> deterministic so I start caching
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:39:46PM +0200, 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 c
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:08:50PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> What's going on with overloading in 0.60? The docs say it will compare
> a string-overloaded object with a string but when I run the code below
I accidentally added in a short-circuit reference comparison prior to the
point where value
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Demerphq
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing and that these tests cannot
> > go. Largely it c
MY BUSINESS IS DONE!
Test diagnostics now look like this:
not ok 21 - foo is bar?
# Failed test 'foo is bar?'
# in t/foo.t at line 40.
# got: 'foo'
# expected: 'bar'
If there's no description it looks like this:
not ok 21
# Failed test in t/foo.t at line 40.
#
is() supresses "Use of uninitalized value" warnings because its useful to
do things like:
is( $foo, undef );
which provides more information than
ok( !defined $foo );
because if it is defined its nice to know what the value is.
Similarly is_deeply() suppresses undef warnings.
On 7/1/05, _brian_d_foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Demerphq
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > > is_deeply() is currently doing th
24 matches
Mail list logo
