On Thursday, 4 June 2015 at 06:33:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-06-03 12:50, Atila Neves wrote:
Easily. I toyed with this syntax
foo().should == 3;
And that works. Unfortunately it doesn't work for `!=` or
`>=`. I could
do the other operators as compile-time strings, but then `==`
would be
the weird one out. In the end I didn't think there was much
value of
typing `should.equal` over `shouldEqual` and left it as it is.
The reason would/might be custom "should functions"/matchers.
"would/might"? YAGNI.
No, but it'd be easy to write. Is that actually needed though?
It
doesn't seem something that would come up often, and one could
always
write `&foo.shouldEqual(&bar)`.
I don't know. RSpec has it.
Ruby doesn't have `&`. It's not needed in D.
I might take a look, but really all I've ever seen is
expecting to throw
a particular exception anyway.
This was for when you're expecting a function to _not_ throw an
exception.
I used to think this was useful, probably due to symmetry. In
practice, it's not. If you want to assert an expression doesn't
throw, just... write the expression. The test will fail anyway if
it throws.
Atila
