Antonio Cangiano writes: > > >> I favor lhs/rhs, it's unambiguous and doesn't force you to work to someone >> else's expectations of what side the "expected" value should go on. >> > > A convention could be established, as it's been the case in other > languages.
That convention has established by force, by whomever designed the API for the testing library in question. > Nevertheless, I do think that you have a fair point. Then, what do you > think of replacing lhs and rhs with the less cryptic left and right? I can read LHS and RHS quite well, but maybe thats because I was used to that terms from an very early point during my study. We used them all the time in the mathy lectures. > Not that the acronym is hard to guess, but it's still less > user-friendly than plain English, IMHO. Yeah, I think expanding to `left` and `right` would be much more clear. Not every user of elixir has studied CS, some might not even speak english very good. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/87twggicts.fsf%40norbert-tuxedo.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
