On 7/2/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> > In short, I think most agree that we're talking about two separate
> > things and that neither is wrong, so if someone wants to pitch a
> > solution rather than continue a long email
On 7/1/2005 7:39 AM, demerphq wrote:
> On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
>> equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
>
> Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial
> position
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:13:50AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you give me a hint as to the difference in a language like Perl?
>
> When they are the same reference they are the same reference (can't
> think of any other way of saying it
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:34:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
Nik Clayton wrote:
As I write my first set of Test::Builder based tests I'm looking for a
way to test the tests themselves, and make sure that they're doing the
right thing.
A quick peruse of CPAN has thrown up Test::Builder::Tester and
Test::Tester.
I've seen quite a few modules that use
Hello,
I'd like to use Test::TAP::HTMLMatrix to better visualize the state of
large test runs.
However, I can't tell from the docs how to run the test suite such that
it gets involved in the process. Could someone provide an example?
Thanks!
Mark
--
http://mark.stosberg.com/
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> In short, I think most agree that we're talking about two separate
> things and that neither is wrong, so if someone wants to pitch a
> solution rather than continue a long email chain, I'm sure we'd be
> grateful :)
Seconded! Go code someth
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:50:24AM -0700, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Finally, I think that comparing functions (which started this
> discussion) is insane!
You haven't done much testing of serialization.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern
Reality is that w
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:40:48PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > something like:
> >
> > like( $foo, qr/.../ );
> >
> > and:
> >
> > cmp_ok( $foo, 'eq', $bar );
> >
> > warning about $foo being undefined? Especially since the test diagnostics
> > will let you know about what was und
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:26:16PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It seems pretty clear to me that most warnings should not be supressed.
> But what about uninit warnings, specificly? Is there any utility to
> something like:
>
> like( $foo, qr/.../ );
>
> and:
>
> cmp_ok( $foo,
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 "comput
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what I'm trying to point out. If we follow the reasoning fully
> out then the second call to is_deeply() would need to fail as well as
> the first. Try explaining that to the someone using it.
>
> calls to is_deeply() *need* to behave i
Fergal Daly wrote:
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But if we say
x=y and x=z can we then say that x,x != y,z
If say
$x = [];
$y = [];
$z = [];
is_deeply($x, $y); # passes
is_deeply($x, $z): # passes
is_deeply([$x,$x], [$y, $z]); # fails for some reason
If w
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
> you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end
> result is the same.
Citing "computer science" as the basis of your position is just too
much. The
--- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are playing on some TV gameshow. You've won the big prize: a
> house. Now the thing is that the presenter gives you a choice of two
> envelopes. Both contain two house addresses. However one contains the
> same address twice and the other contains two s
As I write my first set of Test::Builder based tests I'm looking for a
way to test the tests themselves, and make sure that they're doing the
right thing.
A quick peruse of CPAN has thrown up Test::Builder::Tester and Test::Tester.
I've seen quite a few modules that use Test::Builder::Tester,
Here's a way of looking at it that doesn't require you to consider
what happens if you alter the structures.
Let's say you have a Person class with a Name an Age and a House class
with Owner and Resident.
Now imagine there are 2 people who have the same name and age but are
different people.
my
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if we say
>x=y and x=z can we then say that x,x != y,z
>
> If say
>$x = [];
>$y = [];
>$z = [];
>is_deeply($x, $y); # passes
>is_deeply($x, $z): # passes
>is_deeply([$x,$x], [$y, $z]); # fails for some reason
>
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>
> >>x=y; but x,x != y,y?
> >
> >
> > but rather
> >
> > x=y, but x,x != y,z
>
> But if we say
>x=y and x=z can we then say that x,x != y,z
>
> If say
>$x = [];
>$y = [];
>$z = [];
>is_deeply($x, $y); # p
On 7/2/05, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a way of looking at it that doesn't require you to consider
> what happens if you alter the structures.
>
> Let's say you have a Person class with a Name an Age and a House class
> with Owner and Resident.
>
> Now imagine there are 2 peop
demerphq wrote:
x=y; but x,x != y,y?
but rather
x=y, but x,x != y,z
But if we say
x=y and x=z can we then say that x,x != y,z
If say
$x = [];
$y = [];
$z = [];
is_deeply($x, $y); # passes
is_deeply($x, $z): # passes
is_deeply([$x,$x], [$y, $z]); # fails for some reason
If
On 7/2/05, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>
> > I wasn't suggesting that this should fail and wouldnt suggest it should
> > either.
> >
> > I was suggesting that
> >
> > my $a=[];
> > is_deeply([$a,$a],[[],[]])
>
> So doesn't that just come down to
> is_deeply([], []
demerphq wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that this should fail and wouldnt suggest it should either.
I was suggesting that
my $a=[];
is_deeply([$a,$a],[[],[]])
So doesn't that just come down to
is_deeply([], [])
failing?
Can we really say that
x=y; but x,x != y,y?
If that is the case, the it is
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 checki
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:55:34AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> Similar to is(), except that if $this and $that are hash or array
> references, 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 wher
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 pre
On 7/1/05, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've always thought of C as being about the 'shape' of a
> > data
> > structure. When you think of things in this way, then it seems
> > obvious that given
> >
> > $a = [], $b = [], $c = []
> >
> > then
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 th
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:28:29AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> > So, just for the sake of argument, imagine I write a class where I
> > periodically returns array refs to the user. I do this by building
> > them every time they're called. Later,
29 matches
Mail list logo
