On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > 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 with
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The point acco
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> 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 funct
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
> Calling the abstraction "test_diff" might have avoided the wasted
> brain bandwidth in this thread, but I do not think renaming it in
> test-lib-functions.sh is worth the trouble, either ;-)
Yes, but then it wouldn't be
Jeff King writes:
>> A(ny) sanely defined "compare A with B" function should yield the
>> result of subtracting B from A, i.e. cmp(A,B) should be like (A-B).
>> That is what you feed qsort() and bsearch() (it is not limited to C;
>> you see the same in "sort { $a <=> $b }"). The definition natur
From: "Jeff King"
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 5:06 AM
Was there some objective argument made that I missed?
Here's more; human semantics:
Isn't this one of those "pick any two from three" tasks:
'human', 'objective', 'argument'.
Only 1/6 of the time is an 'objective' answer the re
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
> > differ
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:13:10PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > If the reasoning is "cmp(actual, expect) makes more sense to humans"
>> > then I do not think it is universal.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> ---
>> A(ny) sanely defined "compare A with B"
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:13:10PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > If the reasoning is "cmp(actual, expect) makes more sense to humans"
> > then I do not think it is universal.
>
> No.
>
> ---
> A(ny) sanely defined "compare A with B" function should yield the
> result of subtracting B from A
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:11:49PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>>> > Though I prefer the current, I can certainly live and adapt to a changed
>>> > standard, and I do not mind doi
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:11:49PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > Though I prefer the current, I can certainly live and adapt to a changed
>> > standard, and I do not mind doing so if there is a good reason. But I've
>> > yet to see any ar
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:11:49PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Though I prefer the current, I can certainly live and adapt to a changed
> > standard, and I do not mind doing so if there is a good reason. But I've
> > yet to see any argument beyond "it is not what I like". Which to me
> > ar
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:38:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >> This is way off tangent, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Felipe's
>> >> "compare actual with expect", with reservations.
>> >
>> > This isn't an argument either way, but note
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:38:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >> This is way off tangent, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Felipe's
>> >> "compare actual with expect", with reservations.
>> >
>> > This isn't an argument either way, but note that JUnit (and NUnit and
>>
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:38:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> This is way off tangent, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Felipe's
> >> "compare actual with expect", with reservations.
> >
> > This isn't an argument either way, but note that JUnit (and NUnit and
> > PHPUnit) all have assertEq
John Keeping writes:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 09:47:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>>
>> > test_cmp_rev follows the same order of arguments a "diff -u" and
>> > produces the same output as plain "git diff". It's perfectly readable
>> > and normal.
>>
>> This is
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 09:47:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
> > test_cmp_rev follows the same order of arguments a "diff -u" and
> > produces the same output as plain "git diff". It's perfectly readable
> > and normal.
>
> This is way off tangent, but I am somewh
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> test_cmp_rev follows the same order of arguments a "diff -u" and
> produces the same output as plain "git diff". It's perfectly readable
> and normal.
This is way off tangent, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Felipe's
"compare actual with expect", with reservations.
I
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:54AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>>> There are two ways to fix an inconsistency, the other way is to fix
>>> test_cmp. But that would be a change, and change is not welcome in
>>> Gi
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:04:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > It depends on the change, I suppose. I agree, changing 3k+ lines just
> > to avoid yoda conditions... I doubt the gain worth the code churn.
>
> Especially when the idiom being changed is not even being made better.
> ;-)
Yes
SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:54AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> There are two ways to fix an inconsistency, the other way is to fix
>> test_cmp. But that would be a change, and change is not welcome in
>> Git.
>
> It depends on the change, I suppose. I agree, changing 3
21 matches
Mail list logo
