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 the screen making it harder to see the failure.
True. But we could emit a couple of extra spaces after "actual". Previously I've used "expect" and "actual", which are the same length and close enough to the standard terms that they pass for them. > > They strike me as the teams most intuitively recognizable and least > > open to misinterpretation. > > I think its more important to instantly see the difference between two > simple outputs than it is to use the most absolutely appropriate > terms. True; lining up is important. > Also how can people misinterpret: > > Want: X > Have: Y I don't think they can; that pair certainly passes the "not open to misinterpretation" test. But I claim it isn't as good on the "intuitively recognizable" test. When you first suggested those terms earlier in this thread I did find that I had to slow down when reading them to work out which is which. I had no such slowdown on reading David Landgren's mail. I think it's just that "want" and "have" aren't in widespread use, so it took me a little longer to parse them. But they aren't a terrible choice, and I certainly won't complain if that's what we end up with. Smylers
