On 7/2/05, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 08:55 +0200, demerphq wrote: > > > The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if > > you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end > > result is the same. Without this there is no predictability. No > > program could ever be expected to run the same way twice. > > Throw in some sort of external state and you have exactly that.
I dont see how that impacts my point. Youd be pretty miffed if your computer didnt do the same thing given the same initial state. > Perhaps the name of is_deeply() is misleading, but I don't understand > why the argument about whether container identity should matter to the > function is so important. I expect the following test to pass: > > my $a = \1; > my $b = \1; > is_deeply( $a, $b ); > > Should it not? The values are the same, as are the types of the > containers, but the containers are different. I wasn't suggesting that this should fail and wouldnt suggest it should either. I was suggesting that my $a=[]; is_deeply([$a,$a],[[],[]]) should fail. cheers, yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
