From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-13T02:28:53+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

On Saturday 12 June 2004 03:49, David A. Black wrote:
> 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.

ar�bi�trar�y
 adj. 
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or 
principle.

There is no fundamental reason tests should be ordered alphabetically.  I've 
demonstrated that it's only too easy to order tests any way I want, so I know 
alphabetic is not out of necessity.  So then, what reason or principle 
determines that tests should be run alphabetically?  I see none.  Is there a 
reason and/or principal that says they must be run with that order?  Please 
tell me if there is, and I'll retract.

	Sean O'Dell