On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +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. > > Citing "computer science" as the basis of your position is just too > much. The "computer science" answer to the comparison of references is > that they are equal if and only if they are the same reference.
We arent talking about reference equivelence, but rather topological equivelence or graph equivelence. > Finally, I think that comparing functions (which started this > discussion) is insane! And on the TODO list now. Its actually not that hard to do. Basically we just treat subroutines similarly to other composite objects like hashes and then walk the objects bound into the subroutine from outside. That combined with a textual comparison of the decompiled code would seem to do it nicely. Actually about the only thing that seems to be really "hard" is doing comparison of blessed regexes with overloaded stringification. For that you need XS if you want it to work always. Of course i have the hindsight of having written a serialization module so ive encountered these problems (and solved them) before. :-) yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
