Received: by 10.90.114.11 with SMTP id m11mr1197255agc.6.1247855826116;
        Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <valliants...@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-gx0-f221.google.com (mail-gx0-f221.google.com [209.85.217.221])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 21si128480yxe.12.2009.07.17.11.37.05;
        Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of valliants...@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.221 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.221;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of valliants...@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.221 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=valliants...@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by mail-gx0-f221.google.com with SMTP id 21so1735184gxk.4
        for <mxunit@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=VKZc34Ige60VQEelo6ygcmtTU2KHD+5JJQw7KN6ObbA=;
        b=eVPm1ocBgHIEUZXgl6pwyRaqvEqT02oYRdB1vpikmbuaeA5fcZ6Gsin4vIui4kD+li
         WqzREaV5MNa7ZWv5Kq0RUhGxTYENa9qaNVixwon4IT0qQFACpbub1k7GW/lHYFSBdEc0
         /9IvEknsTzMgNhEkOmK9uT9LnXXqZ6S1IMVvM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Foclc0HOmQTz0846Y5jT2ed241un66UdewTwl14IiJKPk/tKl6jEq03M1lybWN2I83
         R8l0Gbtda49qSfya93xv7Zex43DmViwTYxKyjDcCGBRC7N91ESWUnt1xgukugu+TkvNP
         +sr87+c6zHQ+7ifInB2j9/K6DDbioKzpEpT7A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.45.9 with SMTP id x9mr2470664ybj.34.1247855825050; Fri, 17 
	Jul 2009 11:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6746b5d30907171107l22851528ibe91d808d0a86b69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6746b5d30907171018g1b6c2e5aue0b99f266b33b70a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<afe663af0907171059y6cc3c357ra58f272671de5...@mail.gmail.com> 
	<6746b5d30907171107l22851528ibe91d808d0a86...@mail.gmail.com>
From: denstar <valliants...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:36:45 -0600
Message-ID: <b2321c480907171136o4c76ec08k34dbc1ff210a0...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mxunit:1368] Re: Assert Equals Case Sensitive
To: mxunit@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Bill
Rawlinson<bill.rawlin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well honestly I think assertEqualsCase should be there - but I also think
> that the optional parameter for assertEquals should be there too just
> because, to me, assertEquals already should consider case and, based on my
> other xunit experiences, assertEquals already means totally equal (including
> case).

Yeppers, I think I agree.  If anything, I would sorta think it would
be assertEquals() and assertEqualsNoCase().

.02 cents

-- 
No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than
disbelief in great men.
Thomas Carlyle