The only problem with changing assertEquals behavior is that it would very
likely cause a lot of old tests to break (which would totally suck and seems
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > other xunit experiences, assertEquals already means totally equal
> > 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