On 26/06/15 17:20, David Gileadi wrote:
Let's paint this bikeshed!
I tend to like "must" instead of "should"; it's a bit shorter and stronger.
I prefer "should".
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.
It will also be more composeable. Currently there are a couple of
assertions that have no negative form, i.e. "shouldBeTrue". If
should/shouldNot would be separate from the actual comparison it would
be possible to write "shouldNot.beTrue". It could also support custom
assertions in the future: "should.beA!(Foo)".
Finally, I wonder if it's possible to hijack operator overloading to
support this:
2.timesTwo.must == 4;
Yes and no :). For plain "==" it's possible, but not for ">=" and the
other greater/less/negative comparisons. All these operators are
implemented using the same method. Although there's an enhancement
request (somewhere) to support overloading these operators separately.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
