A long while back Damian said I should follow up on the subject of
comments in qw// like constructs, and how useful they would be.
So im following up. Juerd said this is the right place.
If its not obvious why this would be nice: qw() is often used as a
list constructor for things like options
On 7/17/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-17 02:00]:
perl -MDBI\ 999
DBI version 999 required--this is only version 1.50.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
You can use an equals sign instead of a space, there, which makes
it a little easier
On 7/17/06, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many people would prefer that $description always be the last thing you type and
always be something you can provide.
IMO if I were to write a replacement for Test::More id put the
description argument first, and therby make it mandatory.
And then you
On 7/17/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
so by now we've had quibbles about the irregularity of `skip`,
`can_ok` and `isa_ok`, and a suggestion that the test name always
go first.
Just to clarify, my main point is really that test names should be
mandatory. The fact that
On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a
description for each and every test.
I dont think its that cumbersome at all. Even
On 7/17/06, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/07/06, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset on the screen making it harder to see the failure.
They strike me as
On 7/13/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq writes:
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset
On 7/13/06, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset
On 7/10/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-10 20:40]:
From: chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to
On 7/11/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 15:28, demerphq wrote:
On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst I would also like to see something nicer that got, I'm actually
more concerned about the ordering. I always expect to see expected
first
On 7/6/06, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:46 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
$urls = [ grep m!^s?https?:!, @$urls ];
What's an shttps link?
That the Sean Connery version...
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e /just|another|perl|hacker/
On 7/6/06, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steffen Mueller wrote:
Michael G Schwern schrieb:
What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8?
* ActivePerl::Config on case-insensitive filesystems interacts
erroneously with Module::Install's (outdated) @INC hack, so remove it.
(Patch from
On 5/30/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 12:08, Nicholas Perez wrote:
Why not compare signatures? Is that not feasible?
Which signatures? Is it important that the code comes from the same place
(check the CV properties) or that the code has bound to the same
On 5/26/06, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
From: Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Lester wrote:
Here's an example of why I'm not real excited about CPANTS:
http://community.livejournal.com/perl/120747.html
Ironically, posted by someone that also makes all
On 4/24/06, Abe Timmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will raise the question once again Why don't we use TEST on mswin32?.
Interesting question, especially in light of the fact that TEST doesnt
seem to have any obvious Win32 no-no's, and in fact has Win32 specific
support, so presumably somebody
On 4/23/06, H.Merijn Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
[snip]
I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
failed. If you rely on the output at the
On 4/20/06, Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:22:33AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
On 4/19/06, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, the patch only shows TODO pass status when no failures occur.
Oh and obviously all of Test::Harness'es tests pass
On 4/20/06, Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I'm thinking too hard, or maybe the results reported aren't
exactly as clear as they probably should be. Here's an example test and
its results as reported by Test::Harness with the TODO changes.
#!perl -w
use strict;
use Test::More
On 4/19/06, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, the patch only shows TODO pass status when no failures occur.
Oh and obviously all of Test::Harness'es tests pass. :-)
This patch doesn't apply against my latest dev version of
Test::Harness. I'm going to have to massage it manually.
On 4/19/06, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to handle got/expected failure information in Java or C? There are
pretty rich data structures we could put out there and YAML might help.
That would also likely simplify a parser.
If you mean you want pluck YAML test results from a noisy input
On 4/19/06, David H. Adler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:52:41AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
Please try out this dev release. I'd like to make it 2.58 tomorrow.
Looks fairly good here. A warning, but nothing show stopping.
~/Test-Harness-2.57_05 11:55:36% make test
On 4/18/06, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time I checked the core has 6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED
What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
If so, I think that that would be useful, as it would
On 4/7/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 07 April 2006 05:32, demerphq wrote:
Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
but that only tells you the objects underlying intrinsic type
On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
nobody should be under the impression that using the functions directly
is in any way a good thing.
The only cases for which it's genuinely useful is asking ignoring what
you
On 4/7/06, David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, demerphq wrote:
On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
nobody should be under the impression that using the functions directly
is in any
On 4/7/06, Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-07T08:32:35]
Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
but that only tells you the objects underlying
On 4/6/06, Randy W. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This underlying behavior is one of my biggest pet peeves with the perl
community. Too many people want to go out and write their own version of
modules instead of contributing to the work others began. Diversity is a
good thing, but to me, it's
On 4/4/06, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
There are also some mistakes, like Switch, but once a module goes in, it
can never be removed. That's the main reason why people are so leery
these days of adding new stuff to the core, in case they get it wrong.
Thats
On 4/4/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-04 08:05]:
Personally i think the core is too big argument is a
red-herring given that bandwidth is as cheap as it is these
days. Adding a couple of modules to core would increase the
rsynch time
On 4/4/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to see File::HomeDir ultimately in there, because there's a
number of things that use $ENV{HOME} and implement their own special
case logic.
If it presents a platform independent way to find a home dir then I
agree with you.
You want to
On 4/5/06, Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, I don't dispute the point that it can be wildly obnoxious when
Something::Trivial requires DBD::MySQL and Data::Dump::Streamer when it
could
use neither -- or at least rely on AnyDBM and Data::Dumper. It will just
meant
that
On 4/4/06, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) Yes, I know that the core Perl distribution includes many modules,
but ask any P5Porter and he'll answer you that the core is over-crowed
and that all core modules that can be made dual-life should be released
on the CPAN.
I
On 4/4/06, Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, who still runs pre-5.8.x code deserves what they get.
There are horrible bugs in older Perls, and I don't know why people
still
insist using insecure, buggy and feature-lacking
On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly
if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
going to say that the installer doesnt work?
Yes, absolutely.
So you would file a bug with ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build when
the pre-build script that
On 4/1/06, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly
if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
going to say that the installer doesnt work?
Yes, absolutely.
So you would file a bug with ExtUtils::MakeMaker
On 4/2/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly
if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
going to say that the installer doesnt work?
Yes, absolutely.
So you would file a bug
On 4/2/06, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/2/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly
if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you
going to say that the installer doesnt work
On 3/31/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If an installer can't INSTALL under battle conditions, it is failing
it's primary missing.
Personally I think its worth being a touch more specific with your language.
I dont see Module::Build's job to be to install. I see its job as
being to
On 3/31/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
So it seems to be that you have four (five?) phases:
Pre-Build
Build
Test
Install
(Post Install Test?)
Something like dieing on a use warnings statement in the makefile or
whatever to me constitutes a pre
On 30 Mar 2006 07:02:21 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com wrote:
demerphq == demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
demerphq While apparently some on this list apparently dont favour this
demerphq approach, im pretty much at a loss to come with a better way to test
demerphq
On 3/28/06, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Only the simplest of designs benefits from pre-coded tests, unless you
have
unlimited developer time.
needless to say I just don't believe this.
Try writing a test suite ahead of time for a graphing library.
On 3/18/06, Tels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moin,
On Saturday 18 March 2006 08:12, Adam Kennedy wrote:
From my understanding, one of the little idiosyncrasies of
Makefile.PL/Build.PL installers (including MI variants of both) is that
in order to make sure that the Makefile and Build use
On 3/17/06, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
The only problem with this is that it only deals with CPAN.pm itself.
The problem with locked files is wider than this.
Imagine for example that you have Windows mod_perl or some other
long-running program holding a
On 3/16/06, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
The main reason this is hapenning is that it's not currently possible to
update
CORE packages in ActivePerl, so any module that depends on a CORE package
can
be suffering from this. This problem will persist
On 3/14/06, Jan Dubois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, David Golden wrote:
Steve Peters wrote:
The problem was that newer Scalar-List-Utils uses an internal Perl
function that Windows does not see as an exported function. This was
changed with Perl 5.8.8. Once ActiveState
On 3/14/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's just that the reporting system has a very limited view of what
should be stamped green, and what should be stamped red.
I've never like such breakdowns. Even adding only one more state/color
can make it a lot easier to interpret a result
On 3/14/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even better would be adding two more states so that you can
distinguish between prereq-failure, build-failure, test-failure and
ok.
Well actually I tried to sit down the other day and work out how many
distinct types of success/failure
On 3/1/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience it has more to do with the particular
programming community. In Java and Perl, there is a lot of
emphasis on testing. I don't know about its prevalence in the
Ruby or Python or other communities, but there is definitely
a lot
On 1/31/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 12:22, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Adding more information to the default Test::Harness summary doesn't make
sense to me. It's a user tool. It's important to list failures there, as
the code might not work right, but
On 12/26/05, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 10:49:28PM +0200, Shlomi Fish ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
However prove does not have a --perl switch:
Fixed in Test::Harness 2.57_01. Thanks.
Since you are working on Test::Harness and prove i wonder what the status
On 12/29/05, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 12:40:25PM +0100, demerphq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Since you are working on Test::Harness and prove i wonder what the status
is of
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8767
Will you settle
On 12/18/05, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/17/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 17 December 2005 08:23, demerphq wrote:
It seemed to me that
a better patch would be to change the way harness handles directives
so it recognizes TODO SKIP as being a valid
On 12/16/05, Steve Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real bummer, though, is that I'm now away until Jan 3rd and I'm
switching my machine off now, so you can't see the fruits of your
efforts in my overnight smokes until next year :-(
If its any help to you guys I built and tested just now on
On 12/17/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 17 December 2005 08:23, demerphq wrote:
It seemed to me that
a better patch would be to change the way harness handles directives
so it recognizes TODO SKIP as being a valid directive.
What would that mean? SKIP tests don't
On 9/26/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 06:00:04PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Is there a proper way to test both parts of dual implementation modules?
In a pinch i came up with
use DynaLoader;
sub DynaLoader::bootstrap{1}; # Don't dynaload
Is there a proper way to test both parts of dual implementation modules?
In a pinch i came up with
use DynaLoader;
sub DynaLoader::bootstrap{1}; # Don't dynaload anything please.
use Scalar::Util qw(refaddr); #pure perl implementation
to disable an XS implementation of a module that
On 9/22/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:26:27PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
And, it doesnt help that something about DC breaks the defined
operator when dealing with overloaded objects. (yeah, he did say the
code was alpha quality :-)
Bug reports
This is a bug report for perl from [EMAIL PROTECTED],
generated with the help of perlbug 1.35 running under perl v5.8.6.
-
[Please enter your report here]
Attached is test case that when run under Test::Harness and
Devel::Cover will
On 9/21/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I had my eyes opened by Devel::Cover. I thought I had pretty good
coverage in Regexp::Assemble. In fact I had about 60%. I lifted it up to
100% statement coverage (some branching and conditional paths are never
taken, but they are
On 9/15/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage = 80%, and
another for 100%, and how absolutely impossible it would be to set out
to establish these points for
On 8/11/05, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
X-Posted to Perlmonks (http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=483100)
I frequently write code that generates anonymous functions on the fly.
However, I often want to verify that these functions are correct
without executing them. To this end, I've
On 7/26/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:51:01AM -0300, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
Instead of giving the seed for shuffling, the list can be predetermined
with the Clist argument.
$ prove -b -D -d -s --list=1,2,0,3,4 0 1 2 3 4
will run the same
Schwern wrote:
The little RSS icon in the lower right only gives an
option to subscribe to the recent notes feed.
A daily email digest would be nice for those of us who prefer push and
live in our MTAs not our web browsers.
Did you see Tim O'Reilly's note:
(apologies about the slow follow up)
On 7/4/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 12:36:29AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would using
my $s = sub { $a-[0] = 1; $_[0]; }
above also be looking at refaddrs
On 7/4/05, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:53:45PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
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
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 chain,
Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
issues with the process.
Writing test modules isn't well explained. The pointers to look at
other modules are IMO not too helpful. You have to spend quite a
On 7/3/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:10 +0200, demerphq wrote:
Anyway, maybe ive gotten this all muddled and these arent issues
people should worry about for some good reason or another.
I certainly have a fuzzy idea of what you've done to run
On 7/3/05, Randy W. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
just add an extra method.
I think it would be much more usefull to have your
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:10:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Ive been putting together a Test:: module to handle the kind of deep
comparison that I think is_deeply should do. Ive noticed some minor
issues with the process.
Thank you. I
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another issue I had is that its not particularly clear what the deal
is with an import method per package. Why is it necessary to recode
(slightly differently everywhere) the import routine? I personally
would have found it much nicer
On 7/2/05, Eirik Berg Hanssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is_deeply($x, $y); # Equal, but should not be:
$x .= ; # after the same modification
$y .= ; # of the two things, they are
is_deeply($x, $y); # not equal!
But its not the same
On 7/3/05, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I (and I think Yves) had always been thinking in terms of 2 structures
that had been produced independently, that is nothing in $a can be
part of $b but that's not realistic. In real test scripts, chunks of
the expected and the received values
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
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
things like Test::Builder::Tester. Using the TBT approach would have saved
me from
On 7/3/05, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/3/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What framework is this? Oh, you mean Test::Simple::Catch? Its not really
suitable for release. In fact the way I test Test::More is far inferior to
things like Test::Builder::Tester. Using
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:53:45PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
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
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 12:32:01PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On 7/3/05, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about
my $a = [];
my $b = [];
my $s = sub { $_[0] == $a; }
is_deeply($a, $b); #
On 7/1/05, _brian_d_foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Demerphq
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing
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, I
On 7/1/05, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always thought of Cis_deeply 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 = [], $c = []
then [$a, $a]
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
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([], [])
failing?
Can
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 people who
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, $y); # passes
is_deeply($x
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing and that these tests cannot
go. Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
I cant agree with this analysis.
On 7/1/05, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
IE: why should
In the following part i meant to make it more clear:
by changing this line
$x=1;$y=2;$z=3;
to
$x=1
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:44:06AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Out of curiousity, if Data::Dumper::Streamer can handle
closures why not fix B::Deparse?
I'm not really sure what you mean by fix B::Deparse. B::Deparse does
exactly what
On 7/1/05, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq writes:
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I'm of the opinion that is_deeply() is currently doing the right
thing ... Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
I cant agree
On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial
position (why is accuracy and correctness controversial?)
On 7/1/05, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
[$b,$c] to come out equal.
On 7/1/05, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq writes:
Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
They are exclusive.
Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
different people are surprised by different things; whichever behaviour
On 7/1/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Hi,
Yitzchak pointed me to this thread. I thought I'd add that
Data::Dump::Streamer v1.14 has the capability to Dump closures
properly, that is including bound lexical state. (Albeit with a few
minor caveats, its possible to deliberately construct pathological
closures that wont be eval'able,
On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 08:03:32AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
Yitzchak pointed me to this thread. I thought I'd add that
Data::Dump::Streamer v1.14 has the capability to Dump closures
properly, that is including bound lexical state
On 6/30/05, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incidentally this is a pretty common mistake when handling REF's.
Data::Dumper does it as does YAML and pretty much all the other
storage tools that i have looked at, although Storable gets it right.
Also, i should say that while this circular ref
97 matches
Mail list logo
