On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 03:08:57PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote: > Recently, in November, we've had reason to clone the Rakudo Test.pm > and add an implementation (viklund++) of is_deeply, for testing > whether two arrays, pairs or hashes are deeply -- recursively -- > equivalent. The method does what you'd think it does, checks the types > of its parameters and recurses as necessary. > > With the rich set of equality testing operators in Perl 6... > > <http://www.dlugosz.com/Perl6/web/eqv.html> > <http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html#Comparison_semantics> > > ...and given constructs like [+] and <+>, it's actually a bit > surprising to me that testing whether [1, [2, 3]] and [1, [2, 4]] are > the deeply equivalent isn't more easily expressed than it is. (Or > maybe it is easy with current constructs, and I missed it? Can't rule > that out.) > > Couldn't an adverb to one or more of the existing equality operators > do this nicely? Something like this: > > say [1, [2, 3]] eqv [1, [2, 4]] :deeply;
Doesn't infix:<eqv> already somewhat imply the "is deeply" semantics, at least for arrays and hashes? As far as current implementation status is concerned, I think that the t/spec tests have this wrong in many cases -- they seem to assume that infix:<eqv> tests object identity for equivalence instead of comparing values. For example, t/spec/S29-any/eqv.t has: ok !([1,2,3] eqv [4,5,6]), "eqv on anonymous array references (1)"; #?pugs 2 todo 'bug' ok !([1,2,3] eqv [1,2,3]), "eqv on anonymous array references (2)"; ok !([] eqv []), "eqv on anonymous array references (3)"; I think that the last two tests are incorrect, and that [1,2,3] eqv [1,2,3] should give a True result. Pm
