On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:18:35AM +0200, demerphq wrote: > Its too bad that is_deeply() was the name chosen for the weaker > behaviour and I think the docs need to change to reflect that this can > be misleading. It should be absolutely clear from the documentation > that the routine is not checking if the objects are deepcopies of each > other. It should probably include the sentence "ignores references to > composite objects unless they are non empty and different". I > particularly object to the wording > > "it does a deep comparison walking each data structure to see if they > are equivalent. If the two structures are different, it will display > the place where they start differing."
No argument there, is_deeply() is underdocumented. (That's your cue to provide a patch.) -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Phillip K. Dick
