isA function?

[Delaney, Timothy]

> From: Peter Hansen [mailto:peter at engcorp.com]
> 
> "Delaney, Timothy" wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Peter Hansen [mailto:peter at engcorp.com]
> > >
> > > have the right signature is inadequate in this 
> circumstance, though
> > > it may be acceptable for you when doing traditional unit testing,
> > > writing tests after the fact.

> As for indirect insult -- I don't understand why you think 
> that, unless
> you find "traditional" insulting -- but in any case I didn't mean
> it to be insulting, indirect or otherwise.  Apparently my 
> writing style
> frequently causes people to think that (apart from the times when I 
> *do* intend to insult), for which I apologize.  I'm trying to improve.

The statement came across as "it's obvious that you write your unit tests
after your code" - and coming from such a staunt promoter of writing unit
tests before coding this comes across as an insult. If you didn't intend it
to be, I apologise.

The "incorrect" bit was referring to this particular bit (that I write unit
tests after the code) and was addressed in my next statement (including an
admission that it's impossible to completely write unit tests before the
code in Java ...).

Anyway, bygones until the next misunderstanding ;) I admit i was perhaps a
little strong before and didn't quite get the case you were presenting (I
realised with the next email as you observed). There are cases for type
tests in unit tests, but they should be extremely localised.

Tim Delaney