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. Otherwise why would so many existing test frameworks do it the other way? And that is why I said it seems more like an issue of personal preference than a universal truth. Was there some objective argument made that I missed? > 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. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html