On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:28:30AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing and that these tests cannot
> > go. Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
>
> I cant agree with this analysis. If you go down this route surprise abounds.
>
> (From my earlier post)
>
> is_deeply($x,$y); #ok
>
> $x->[0]{a}=1;
> $y->[0]{a}=1;
>
> is_deeply($x,$y); #Surprise!
>
> Thats a MUCH bigger surprise IMO. And a fatal one for anybody really
> relying on is_deeply.
I've never encountered nor even considered this case before you mentioned it.
I'm pretty sure that's the case with everyone else here particularly, as
you point out, nearly everything gets this 'wrong'. If anyone else has
been surprised by this sort of behavior before, please say so.
Additionally I'm queasy about how much code this change will break. Ovid
suggested making the change and running it against a large corpus of
existing tests, such as the Perl core. I'd like to see that done as it
would pretty much kill the discussion right there if things failed.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern
Just call me 'Moron Sugar'.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05182002.shtml
