True. I usually expose "deep" objects by methods rather than hash
access, so it's not really a problem for the majority of my code.
Adrian
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 03:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:51:07AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
Option three.
isa_ok
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:51:07AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Option three.
>
>isa_ok($obj, 'MyClass');
>is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
This is, unfortunately, shallow. It won't compare objects inside $obj.
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:21 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Thursday 27 February 2003 20:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:32:42PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
I think that although a test that ignores blessed classes could be
handy
in some circumstances (ie programming
I'd go for feature, not bug. For me is_deeply has always been for
testing structure. We have isa_ok for checking class identity.
Having one that tested for both might be useful, but I would not change
the behaviour of is_deeply.
Adrian
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 05:32 pm, Fergal Daly
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:03:50PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > - let _deep_check take it's cue from the second argument. If the second
> > > argument is blessed then be strict about the classes, if it's unblessed
> > > then ignore the classes. This should happen at all levels in the
> > > stru
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:21:09PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > I am already not yet convinced. In particular, it makes this sort of test
> > more difficult than it needs be:
> >
> > is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
>
> Absolutely, but there is currently no way to do this
>
> is_d
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:32:42PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> I think that although a test that ignores blessed classes could be handy in
> some circumstances (ie programming in general), I reckon in the context of
> test suites it's a bug.
I am already not yet convinced. In particular, it mak
On Thursday 27 February 2003 22:03, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to add a third argument to _deep_check to switch
> on/off bless checking, rather than having to reimplement the whole thing?
Below is a very simple patch to do that. That makes cmp_object very easy
F
--
Do you need
On Thursday 27 February 2003 21:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:21:09PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
>
> Or even better, cmp_objects().
Yep, sounds better.
> > - let _deep_check take it's cue from the second argument. If the second
> > argument is blessed then be strict ab
On Thursday 27 February 2003 20:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:32:42PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > I think that although a test that ignores blessed classes could be handy
> > in some circumstances (ie programming in general), I reckon in the
> > context of test suites
On Thursday 27 February 2003 16:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > is_deeply() ignores the classes of blessed refs. So
> >
> > perl -MTest::More=no_plan -e 'is_deeply(bless([], "a"), bless([], "b"))'
> >
> > passes,
>
> Oh. Not sure if that's a bug or a feature. Discuss it on perl-qa.
I think that
11 matches
Mail list logo
