So...
In a previous thread I was talking about how eq_set() should be really
called eq_bag(). Now, not that I've got too much on my plate already (see
my fun todo) but I do have an itch to scratch...
I'm fed up applying too much logic in my test suites. This is bad
because:
a) I spend too
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, aka...)
What would it do?
(I can show you lots of sloppy tests if you like. :)
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> > Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, aka...)
>
> What would it do?
>
> (I can show you lots of sloppy tests if yo
On Tue 09 Apr 2002 18:02, Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > > There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> > > Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, ak
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:02:32PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > > There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> > > Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, aka...
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > What would it do?
> > (I can show you lots of sloppy tests if you like. :)
>
> Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear from the example. sort of like eq_set meets
> is_deeply.
Well, I think he was just being a bit
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > b) Doing proper set comparison (not bags)
>
> This I'm not sure about. You demonstrated some set comparison along
> these lines a while back, did you not?
eq_set() is really bag comparison. I want a test which returns true iff
for every item in two
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> eq_set() is really bag comparison.
Well, my point was, it *is* a set comparison if you pass it sets.
The problem, in my view, is that perl lets you pass it something
which is not a set. Thus, it seems perfectl
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:57:30PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
> >
> > eq_set() is really bag comparison.
>
> Well, my point was, it *is* a set comparison if you pass it sets.
> The problem, in my view, is th
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:03:51PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:57:30PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > >
> > > eq_set() is really bag comparison.
> >
> > Well, my point was
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:32:04AM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> > > b) Doing proper set comparison (not bags)
> >
> > This I'm not sure about. You demonstrated some set comparison along
> > these lines a while back, did you not?
>
> eq_set() is reall
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> The API doesn't define which side is "expected" and which side "got",
> does it?
I believe it's defined (though perhaps not explicitly) as the first
argument being the "got," and the second being the "expected." This
is how the error messages print it
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Don't fixate on it, write Test module with better set handling.
Ah, now I see what people don't understand about the point I was
trying to make.
Let me try again: that function does not take sets as parameters.
It takes arrays, which may or may no
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:54:56AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > The API doesn't define which side is "expected" and which side "got",
> > does it?
>
> I believe it's defined (though perhaps not explicitly) as the first
> argument being the "got,"
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:02:59AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> The whole problem could never have arisen if sets were objects
> here, rather than, pretending that an array really is a set. That's
> the point I'm trying to make.
What must be remembered is these are common testing modules for
tes
15 matches
Mail list logo
