From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-06-12T19:49:58+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> Arbitrary meaning that, from a library USER'S viewpoint, the decision to order 
> tests alphabetically is without reason and seems hastily settled upon.  
> Perhaps the library developer had a good reason, but as a user of the library 
> with different needs, I don't see/concur with the reason.

Have you checked the archives, or asked Nathaniel?  That might help
you see the reasoning behind the work (including input from the
community, Nathaniel's attention to which is utterly exemplary), and
then decide in a more informed manner whether or not you concur with
it.

Also, now that you've been made aware of the fact that Test::Unit runs
the tests in alphabetical order, it would be much more collegial not
to cling to the use of the word "arbitrary" and its derivatives in an
effort to make retroactive sense of your original, incorrect claim.
I've watched Nathaniel work on Test::Unit over the years, and heard
him talk about it online and in person, and I can assure you that
there is nothing arbitrary about his design whatsoever.  Anyone
writing a testing framework in Ruby, whether they make the same
decisions he has or not, should be grateful or at least gracious.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net