On 6/26/15 7:30 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 13:32:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Just in case it wasn't clear : I will vote "no" on this proposal as
long as it features longish "readable" names like "shouldEquals".
You'd rather `should!"=="`? I'm not sure which I'd prefer; the thing is
that so far you're the only one strongly against it. The only other
thing I heard was a question at DConf on why it wasn't `assertEquals`
instead.
Atila
Let's paint this bikeshed!
I tend to like "must" instead of "should"; it's a bit shorter and stronger.
I tend to like dot-separated English for testing, e.g.
throwRangeError.must.throw!RangeError;
One advantage is that the dot after "must" (or "should") can trigger
code completion on IDEs.
Finally, I wonder if it's possible to hijack operator overloading to
support this:
2.timesTwo.must == 4;
