On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:41:30AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> I'm not sure there is a right way to deparse closures (in general).
> For example if a variable is shared between 2 closures then it only
> makes sense to deparse both of them together. Deparsing them in turn
> will lose the sharedness info.
It would be less wrong than what B::Deparse is currently doing: completely
ignoring closure data.
> How many people would actually understand that caveat?
About the same amount that use and understand closures.
I'm perfectly happy to punt this problem over to B::Deparse and let them
figure it out. As it stands B::Deparse is the best we can do with code
refs. What's the alternative?
> > > For 2 B::Deparse works and might be the only way but then again, it
> > > might be better to just get access to the original string of code
> > > before it gets compiled,
> >
> > If they want to compare the original string they should have put it in their
> > data structure. Simp.
>
> That is exacltly what I was suggesting,
So are we just having an agreement?
Another way to look at the "eval" case is to apply it to other references.
is_deeply( eval "{ foo => 42, bar => 23 }",
{ "bar", 42, "foo", 23 } );
Even though the code is written differently the resulting data is the same.
Would anyone be in doubt that it should pass?
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern
Ahh email, my old friend. Do you know that revenge is a dish that is best
served cold? And it is very cold on the Internet!
