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 the screen making it harder to see the failure.
True. But we could emit a couple of extra spaces after "actual".
Yeah, that would definately be better than the current scheme. And at
least "actual" isnt much shorter than the opposite.
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.
Yeah I can understand that. I think i would have the same issue with
"Actual" but thats splitting hairs, it wouldnt bother me if it was
chosen.
cheers,
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
