On Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:19:31 UTC, Dechcaudron wrote:
On Saturday, 5 May 2018 at 15:51:11 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
Personally, I don't like that kind of "abuse" of operators at
all. I think it looks really unusual and it kind of breaks
your "flow" when reading the code. Additionally, people, who
don't know about the special behaviour the operators have in
this case, might get really confused. I would much prefer it,
if you used a more common fluent style (like
1.0.should.be.approximately(1.0001);).
Anyways, thanks for working on this awesome project!
I think I'm siding with Johannes here. Much as the overloads
look nice, I don't really see the advantage over `shouldEqual`.
Also, what's with `all.these.identifiers`? Any particular
reason why you are more fond of them rather than of good ol'
pascalCase?
Fluent assertions have one major advantage over using pascalCase
assertions: There is no ambiuguity about the order of arguments.
When using e.g. assertEquals, how do you know wheter is is
supposed to be assertEquals(actual, expected), or
assertEquals(expected, actual)? The first one is the only one
that makes sense wirh UFCS, but it is not clear directly from the
API. On top of that, some popular Frameworks (I‘m looking at you,
JUnit...) do it exactly the other
way round.
With fluent assertions, you don‘t have this Problem, it is much
more clear that it should be actual.should.equal(expected) and
not expected.should.equal(actual), because it fits naturally in
the chain of ufcs calls.
