Good question.
Here, I was using Test::Morefor rhetorical and didactical purposes: in other words, I was trying to make a point. My point was, to illustrate how the "naive" expectation of dereferencing is contradicted by the reality of how autovivification works. I didn't mean that autovivification is a bug; I understand that this behavior is there for a purpose, controversial though it may be.
Your question made me reflect a bit, and realize that I have lately been incorporating Test::More into my perlmonks posts, in two ways.
- In SOPW posts, I am showing the behavior I want, but am not getting, with test more failing.
- In Meditations, I am using test more rhetorical, as here, to make points.
I guess I am also hoping to spread the testing gospel in this way, as well as my own test fu. | [reply] |
My point was to illustrate how the "naive" expectation of dereferencing is contradicted by the reality of how autovivification works.
Ok, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation. It might have been nice to say that in the original post, but I know how hard it can be to figure out the things people will have questions or confusion about.
I have lately been incorporating Test::More into my perlmonks posts
I like this idea. One of the reasons I like tests is they can convey a lot of information in a convenient, machine-usable little packet. They are just like the test snippets I usually end up writing, but in addition they show where my expectations are violated or upheld.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
Understood, but I think people would find it clearer if you negated your test so that they all past, rather than posting tests which are meant to fail.
| [reply] |
