On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:03:50PM +0000, Fergal Daly wrote: > > > - let _deep_check take it's cue from the second argument. If the second > > > argument is blessed then be strict about the classes, if it's unblessed > > > then ignore the classes. This should happen at all levels in the > > > structures. > > > > This sounds too magical. > > Magical how? It may be a bit too hard to explain and so it's probably a bad > idea.
Yes, that. I'm not fond of test functions that try to be Clever. Its hard enough to debug a failing test without wondering if the test library is trying to be Helpful. > > Either way, Test::More's is_deeply() behavior isn't likely to change, so > > Test::Set will have to take care of it. > > Would it be acceptable to add a third argument to _deep_check to switch > on/off bless checking, rather than having to reimplement the whole thing? I'm going to have to think about how to make it extendable before I start just taking args ontot he thing.
