Done http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4129
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>wrote: > this is a detail. Fix it fast and pass to the next important point. > > On May 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Damien Cassou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So...the only thing we change is the order in the parameters....the > question > > > is... do you condiser that changing the API ? > > > > I think this is changing the API because the contract of the method > > changes. But, it's an important change and it has a limited impact: > > > > - only error messages for non passing tests will be affecting > > > > exactly > > > > - there are few senders of this message > > > > yes, I checked that too > > > > - among the existing senders, a lot of them use the API the wrong way > > (which means there code will get fixed automatically when we update > > the API :-)). > > > > > > exactly :) > > > > The other possibily is to forget about actual and expected and let the > message be soemthing like > > > > 'Assertion failed: (' , actual asString , ') ~= (' , expected > asString , ')' > > > > or > > > > 'Assertion failed: (' , expected asString , ') ~= (' , actual > asString , ')' > > > > > > But still...I prefer the previous one changing the order :) > > > > -- > > Damien Cassou > > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > > > "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them > > popular by not having them." James Iry > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
