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 the screen making it harder to see the failure.Yves, that is absolute nonsense. The current output already has it that way: % perl -MTest::More -e 'plan(tests => 1); is("slothrop", "porpentine")' 1..1 not ok 1 # Failed test in -e at line 1. # got: 'slothrop' # expected: 'porpentine' # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. They look lined up to me.
Well i remember this being an annoying thing in the past. Maybe the output has changed to be less irritating. Maybe im misremembering. If so then sorry.
>> They strike me as the teams most intuitively recognizable and least open >> to misinterpretation. I choose to disagree.
If so i think you might be disagreing with yourself. :-) That was a quote of Smylers agreeing with _your_ proposal.
> I think its more important to instantly see the difference between two > simple outputs than it is to use the most absolutely appropriate > terms. But you cannot instantly see with what you suggest, since the two words are *exactly the same length*! With 'expected' and 'actual', the lengths are different, that's the whole point. And of course, they would be appropriately right-justified to line up their values.
So long as they are fine. Id prefer that wasnt necessary, but its not so much of a biggie.
> Also how can people misinterpret: > > Want: X > Have: Y They are not very typographically distant.
Oh come now. Talk about nits. H and W are pretty different. But so long as i dont have to adjust the output to get it to line up im fine. I think your proposal is acceptable. Certainly better than 'got'. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
