On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 15:32:47 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 26/06/15 15:32, 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 would vote "no" because of this?
Totally. Remember - this is effectively will make specific API a
language standard which will propagate it to all sort of 3d party
libraries. I find it unacceptably unreadable and verbose, to the
point it will make working with those libraries considerably
harder.
I use `test!"=="(a. b)` which is:
- short
- robust (supports any binary operator D has)
- straight to the point (it is about testing, not about what
program should/must do)
The fact that examples uncourage UFCS abuse makes it even worse.
Something that looks like this:
`2.timesTwo.shouldEqual(4)`
.. gets immediately marked as garbage in my book.
There are also things like `shouldBeFalse` and `shouldBeTrue`. I
couldn't imagine anyone seriously using names like that until I
have examined that proposal.
