On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:52:10PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Ah, you mean "if you think that the compare function should behave like > > C *_cmp functions, it should be A-B". Perhaps it is simply that I do not > > think of the function in those terms, but more like "show me the > > differences from B to A". > > But that is the problem, you are unable to ignore the implementation. > You don't see test_cmp(), you see 'diff -u'.
Yes, I already said earlier in the thread: I certainly think of "test_cmp A B" as "differences from A to B", and the order makes sense. IOW, the "test_cmp is diff" abstraction is leaky, and that is fine (if it were not leaky, then order would not matter at all, but it clearly does). And I do not think it is a problem. The point of the function is not to abstract away the idea of comparison. The point is to give a hook for people on systems without "diff -u" to run the test suite. > > John mentioned JUnit, NUnit, and PHPUnit earlier in the thread. I > > believe that Ruby's Test::Unit::Assertions also has > > assert_equal(expected, actual). > > That's because they all do first expect, then actual. > > assert_equal( expected, actual, failure_message = nil ) > assert_not_equal( expected, actual, failure_message = nil ) > > That's why. I do not see any reason why "not_equal" would not also work as "assert_not_equal(actual, expected)". Maybe I am missing your point. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
