On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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 argument beyond "it is not what I like". Which to me
>> > argues for the status quo as the path of least resistance.
>> Didn't Junio already provided reasoning?
> If the reasoning is "cmp(actual, expect) makes more sense to humans"
> then I do not think it is universal.


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 naturally
makes "cmp(A,B) < 0" like "A < B" and "cmp(A,B) > 0" like "A > B".

> Otherwise why would so many
> existing test frameworks do it the other way?

Which many existing frameworks do it the other way?

>> Here's more; human semantics:
>> Computer, compare A with B
>> cmp(A, B)
>> Why would I write?
>> cmp(B, A)
>> Could you even construct an English sentence that starts with B, and then A?
> "Computer, given that we expect B, how does A differ?". Or "Computer, we
> expect B; does A match it?"
> Or any number of variations. I'm sure you will say "but those seem
> awkward and unlike how I think about it". But that was my point; it
> seems to be a matter of preference.

Really? You think any sane human being would prefer:

Computer, given that we expect B, how does A differ?


Computer, compare A with B

Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to