Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> And I also do not see a reason why somebody wants to make the dist >> computation to be 1-based (iow, changing the minimum from 0 to 1) or >> one step not to be 1 (iow, giving 11 to e1 and e8), so while I agree >> it is not strictly necessary to cast the concrete distance value in >> stone, I do not see much harm doing so *if* it helps to make it >> simpler the test that is necessary to make sure relative dist values >> assigned to these commits are in correct order. > > I guess that you still want to misunderstand me. Not at all. > So in this case, quite obviously what you want to do is to verify that E > and F get larger dist than e1 and e8. So that is what you test for. Not > some fixed text that might require adjusting in the future for any other > reason than a real bug. The most important part of the above quote is "*if* it helps..." part, and I do think the downside of insisting on dist being exactly 0 for E and F is acceptable than having to write the "E and F must get the same dist value, and e1 and e8 must get the same dist value that is larger than the value that E and F gets, ..." test without doing so *and* still keep the resulting test readable. It is a tradeoff and we are drawing the line differently (I am being more practical here than insisting on requiring absolute minimum and nothing more).
