demerphq wrote:
On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial
position (why is accuracy and correctness controversial?) i do beleive
Accuracy and correctness are Good. Breaking backwards compatibility is Bad.
it is important that this is debated outside of just the perl-qa list
(its not that high traffic or visibility IMO) so I have taken the
liberty of starting a thread on Perlmonks about this. It is at
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=471639.
Ohh, that'll make schwern happy :)
I also beleive that as Test::More is core it has certain obligations
that mean that this issue should probably also be discussed on p5p.
But for now lets see what happens. The motivation of all of us Im sure
is the best interests fo the Perl community who consider Test::More to
be a critical module whose quality and standards are vital to the
ongoing success of the Perl world.
After all this is the perl quality assuarace list right?
Of course it should be possible to test for referential equality, if you
need it, you need it bad, and nothing else will do. I don't think anyone
questions you on this. I don't, however, think it is feasible to make
is_deeply() do this, for historical reasons.
I would add this new functionality via a new looks_like() or
is_deeply_ref() routine. No debate there: if people don't need it they
won't (have to) use it.
David
