On 7/2/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
In short, I think most agree that we're talking about two separate
things and that neither is wrong, so if someone wants to pitch a
solution rather than continue a long email chain,
Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
issues with the process.
Writing test modules isn't well explained. The pointers to look at
other modules are IMO not too helpful. You have to spend quite a
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:10 +0200, demerphq wrote:
Anyway, maybe ive gotten this all muddled and these arent issues
people should worry about for some good reason or another.
I certainly have a fuzzy idea of what you've done to run into these
problems. Can you post your code somewhere for
On 7/3/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:10 +0200, demerphq wrote:
Anyway, maybe ive gotten this all muddled and these arent issues
people should worry about for some good reason or another.
I certainly have a fuzzy idea of what you've done to run into these
demerphq wrote:
Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
just add an extra method.
I think it would be much more usefull to have your module work with
rather than in place of Test::More. I can't
On 7/3/05, Randy W. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
just add an extra method.
I think it would be much more usefull to have your
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:10:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
issues with the process.
Thank you. I get very little feedback in this regard and appreciate it.
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 10:04:52AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Well, its more what i was trying to do. Just ask yourself how do a i
write module that is exactly like Test::More except one of the tests
has overloaded behaviour?
You don't. I love that answer.
You write your module with its one
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:10:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
issues with the process.
Thank you. I
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another issue I had is that its not particularly clear what the deal
is with an import method per package. Why is it necessary to recode
(slightly differently everywhere) the import routine? I personally
would have found it much nicer
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 12:24:12AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 08:55 +0200, demerphq wrote:
The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end
result is the same. Without this there is no
Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point about modification is that if 2 things start out equal to
one another and they are modified in the same way then they should
still be equal to one-another.
That implies that two array refs are not equal:
use Test::More 'no_plan';
$x = [];
See my reply to Andrew for the $a. stuff and see my reply a long
time ago when I also said that is_deeply should stay the same (both
for this case and others).
I'm just defending the idea that such a comparison is self-consistent,
possible and useful,
F
On 7/2/05, Eirik Berg Hanssen [EMAIL
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:34:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Citing computer science as the basis of your position is just too
much. The computer science answer to the comparison of
No change to the module but one of the test scripts needed fixing
because it was doing something improper that used to be harmless but
isn't anymore.
F
On 7/2/05, Eirik Berg Hanssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is_deeply($x, $y); # Equal, but should not be:
$x .= ; # after the same modification
$y .= ; # of the two things, they are
is_deeply($x, $y); # not equal!
But its not the same
On 7/3/05, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I (and I think Yves) had always been thinking in terms of 2 structures
that had been produced independently, that is nothing in $a can be
part of $b but that's not realistic. In real test scripts, chunks of
the expected and the received values
On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end
result is the same.
Citing computer science
Docs are sucky due to lack of brainpower.
See http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/util/ for some related stuff,
namely yaml_harness and testgraph.pl, and
http://nothingmuch.woobling.org/Test-TAP-HTMLMatrix/example.pl
I'm working on some nice features for the next version, and they're
actually
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
things like Test::Builder::Tester. Using the TBT approach would have saved
me from
On 7/3/05, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
things like Test::Builder::Tester. Using
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 12:32:01PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about
my $a = [];
my $b = [];
my $s = sub { $_[0] == $a; }
is_deeply($a, $b); # passes
is_deeply($s-($a), $s-($b)); # fails
Near
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:53:45PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
you do the same operation to two items that are the
I'm going through some work to restore Test::More and Test::Harness to work
on 5.4.5, minor stuff really, and I'm wondering if its worth the trouble.
Has anyone seen 5.004_xx in the wild? And if so, were people actively
developing using it or was it just there to run some old code and they
were
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 12:36:29AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would using
my $s = sub { $a-[0] = 1; $_[0]; }
above also be looking at refaddrs?
No. But it wouldnt be symmetric would it?
It's no less symmetric that the first
http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-Simple-0.60_01.tar.gz
or
http://svn.schwern.org/svn/CPAN/Test-Simple/trunk
or
a CPAN near you.
I've made a lot of little, detailed changes in the last couple of days so
I figured it would be nice to kick out an alpha.
The big changes are:
* Added the long
26 matches
Mail list logo
