On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
The docs for is() says it uses eq, is_deeply() says it looks inside, it
doesn't say looks inside sometimes.
It says it looks inside listrefs and hashrefs. That's all.
Objects are not listrefs and hashrefs. They are sometimes made
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:40:09 -0400, Gordon Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
GH Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:27, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Isn't the easiest way to get a recursive-and-exact object graph
match to simply use an existing serializer
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 07:18:53AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact the is_deeply currently looks inside them is a bug.
The AUTHOR INTENDED IT TO and so it is not a bug.
The author's intent is entirely irrelevant to whether or not something
is a bug.
and you want to ignore Michael's
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
It says it looks inside listrefs and hashrefs. That's all.
Objects are not listrefs and hashrefs. They are sometimes made *from*
such, but they are not such.
I think many people would disagree with you here but that's irrelevant
Tony Bowden wrote:
The author's intent is entirely irrelevant to whether or not something
is a bug.
Wow. I had 2 possible responses in mind, this one was not on my radar at
all. That was top left corner in the last second of extra time but we
appear to be playing on 2 different pitches.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:39:21PM +0200, Tels wrote:
Real world example: [*]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ perl -MTest::More -MMath::String -wle 'plan tests = 1; $a =
Math::String-new(abc); $b = $a-copy()-bneg(); ok $a,$b; print $a != $b
(, $a-as_number(), != , $b-as_number(),);'
1..1
ok 1 - abc
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:26:23AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
This is fine:
isa_ok($str2, ref $str1, '... and the object');
This is (almost) not fine:
is($str2, $str1, '... and the strings are equal');
However, the latter (and is_deeply()) should work *If and Only If* that
comparison is
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 07:18:53AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The AUTHOR INTENDED IT TO and so it is not a bug. If you don't believe me
and you want to ignore Michael's previous mail on it then look at the
source code where you will see
if( UNIVERSAL::isa($e1, 'ARRAY') and
My opinion: those is_deeply() tests should probably not pass. While on the surface
it may appear
that they should, I would argue that this is a case where the programmer writing the
tests needs
to know enough about the system he or she is building to create tests that accurately
reflect how
The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
answer on these tests. I was going to say:
What you need is
package MyOtherString;
use overload
'' = sub { shift-[0] },
fallback = 1;
sub new {
my ($class, $val) = @_;
bless [ $val ], $class;
}
But actually
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:07:00PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
answer on these tests.
But do you agree that they should all pass?
If so I've completely misunderstood your earlier arguments. They certainly
aren't deeply
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
2) is $str1, $str2;
3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
All should pass as far as I am concerned.
OK - what if it was slightly more complex:
package MyString;
use overload
'' =
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 10:52 Europe/London, Tony Bowden wrote:
[snip]
1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
2) is $str1, $str2;
3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
All should pass as far as I am concerned.
The Test::More deeply behaviour matches my intuitions, and I would have
tests
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 16:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
2) is $str1, $str2;
3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
All should pass as far
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
2) is $str1, $str2;
3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
All should pass as far as I am concerned.
I agree. There is no
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
my $str1 = MyString-new(foo, bar);
my $str2 = MyOtherString-new(foo, baz);
Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
I must admit that even with the current is_deeply it will be a pass. I
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
my $str1 = MyString-new(foo, bar);
my $str2 = MyOtherString-new(foo, baz);
Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
I must admit that
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 11:23 AM, Tels wrote:
From my point of view is_deeply() is an extended ok(), which also walks
arrays, hashes and other (possible nested) structures, and then
compares
_each_ element.
This is how I've always seen it, assuming Tels meant is() instead of
ok()
Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:27, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Isn't the easiest way to get a recursive-and-exact object graph
match to simply use an existing serializer (FreezeThaw,
Data::Dumper)?
If you want a yes/no answer then it probably is but
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:23, Tels wrote:
I agree. For instance, ok() just looks at the outside, and if it compares
ok,
the objects are considered equal. After all, this is the entire point behind
overloading and tie, to fake something. For instance, this feature of
ok() makes it
20 matches
Mail list logo
