On 7/2/05, Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that this should fail and wouldnt suggest it should
either.
I was suggesting that
my $a=[];
is_deeply([$a,$a],[[],[]])
So doesn't that just come down to
is_deeply([], [])
failing?
Can
demerphq wrote:
x=y; but x,x != y,y?
but rather
x=y, but x,x != y,z
But if we say
x=y and x=z can we then say that x,x != y,z
If say
$x = [];
$y = [];
$z = [];
is_deeply($x, $y); # passes
is_deeply($x, $z): # passes
is_deeply([$x,$x], [$y, $z]); # fails for some reason
If
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
To me 'deeply' implies recursing as deep as the data structure goes, not
that there's a special rule for the top-level that's treated differently
from the others.
Nobody is saying is_deeply shouldn't be deep. If I understand
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it depends how you wish
to look at it. If you just consider a
On 7/1/05, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq writes:
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I'm of the opinion that is_deeply() is currently doing the right
thing ... Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
I cant agree with this
demerphq writes:
Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
They are exclusive.
Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
different people are surprised by different things; whichever behaviour
is implemented some people are going to suffer
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
[$b,$c] to come out equal.
Test::Deep is for tweaked deep comparisons.
Test::Deep doesn't
On 7/1/05, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
[$b,$c] to come out equal.
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 depends how
Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
- Forwarded message from demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:17:19 +0200
To: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Yves wrote:
Ok, ive started work on this, however there is a minor problem: The
test in circular_refs regarding rt.cpan.org 11623. (I added names to
make it easier to work with.)
{
# rt.cpan.org 11623
# Make sure the circular ref checks don't get confused by a reference
#
11 matches
Mail list logo
