On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 15:20:43 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
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;
Yes, this works for `==`. Unfortunately it doesn't work for
anything else, including but not limited to `!=`. Oh, I tried.
Even though `==` is clearly going to be the most used one, I
don't like the idea of having to use a compile-time string for
the other ones.
Atila
