On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> Ordering tests alphabetically, to me, is arbitrary.  I can't say I really know
> how many people got involved in the decision to order tests alphabetically,
> but I can say that whether it's one or a thousand, the method makes zero
> sense to me and it's arbitrary as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I am about to put the word "arbitrary" back into every single
> celsoft.com/Battery document I've written if people refuse to respect my
> opinion in the matter and continue to berate me over it.  I took it out
> initially trying to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, but since it seems
> apparent that this discussion is going to go on and on, I feel almost
> compelled to hold up the word on a billboard.  I used the word properly, and
> I still meant what I said.  I'm starting to feel sorry for taking the word
> out of the docs.
>
> 	Sean O'Dell

it seems that, at least in this instance, it was not __completely__ arbitrary
- it was chosen to feel 'hacky'.  this is illuminating:

   http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=004f01c2c670%244c8c38d0%242001a8c0%40ABRAHAM

although i would concede that some __other__ hacky method could have been
chosen and, in that sense, it is arbitrary.  however, strictly speaking there
was a rational behind the choice so it cannot accurately be called arbitrary.

i suppose the point you are making is that - so long as some ordering method
exists it's implementation is not important, which i would agree with.

cheers.

-a
--
===============================================================================
| EMAIL   :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| PHONE   :: 303.497.6469
| A flower falls, even though we love it; and a weed grows, even though we do
| not love it. --Dogen
===============================================================================