From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-06-13T05:34:02+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

> arbitrary:
> Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or 
> principle.
> 
> There is no fundamental reason tests should be ordered alphabetically. 

Maybe, maybe not -- but in either case, I was addressing your original
claim, which was not that choosing alphabetical order over other designs
was arbitrary, but rather that in Nathaniel's design, the tests were
run in arbitrary (i.e., determined by chance, whim, etc.) order.  They
aren't, so I wanted to let you and other readers know.  

This had (and has) nothing to do with the processing of choosing
alphabetical order (which you introduced into the discussion later),
but rather with the fact that alphabetical order is not, itself,
arbitrary -- and, concommitantly, with the fact that Nathaniel didn't
deserve to have his design misrepresented as involving something it
doesn't.


David

-- 

David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net