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.
They strike me as the teams most intuitively recognizable and least open
to misinterpretation.
I choose to disagree.
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.
Also how can people misinterpret:
Want: X
Have: Y
They are not very typographically distant.
David
--
Much of the propaganda that passes for news in our own society is given
to immobilising and pacifying people and diverting them from the idea
that they can confront power. -- John Pilger
