On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:39:46PM +0200, 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?)
Because they are relative. > 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. You are mistaken about the role of is_deeply() and of Test::More. I've said this time and time again, is_deeply() a "bestest behavior for the mostest" simple data comparison function. Its not the End All Be All Yardstick. I do not believe it is possible to write The One True Comparison Function and still keep things simple. To handle all the different things people consider to be equivalence there is Test::Deep and any other module which wants to take a stab at it. This is why there is Test::Builder, so that Test::More's behaviors would NOT get locked into the position of being the One True anything. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern You are wicked and wrong to have broken inside and peeked at the implementation and then relied upon it. -- tchrist in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
