On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 08:06:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
In case you don't know what I'm talking about:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3207
Since this is an API issue it's import to get it right the
first time. Personally I'm not sure what I prefer (well, I am,
but what I actually want isn't syntactically valid D). I think
the options so far are:
1) What's there already, namely `shouldEquals`, `shouldBeIn`,
etc.
2a) Compile-time strings for operators: `should!"=="`,
`should!"in"`
2b) Dicebot's `test!"=="`. `assert` is so much better, I wish
we could use that.
3) Composable ones: should.equals, should.not.equals, or
another word that isn't "should"
4) Anything else?
I'm not convinced composability brings anything to the table
except for editor dot-completion. I don't like the verbosity of
what's there now, but my prefererred syntax doesn't work except
for the ubiquitous check for equality (`should ==`). Well, the
dream would be that `assert(foo == bar)` did what part of this
PR does, but that's another story and something that can't be
done by a library unless we had AST macros, which we won't. Or
Lisp's reader macros, but we won't get those either.
Thoughts? Votes?
Atila
Much rather prefer the composable ones over the `shouldEquals`,
simply for readability and easy extending.
These days I am leaning towards BDD, but everybody has his
favorite. Maybe just providing the low-level details in
std.testing would enough; e.g. a test runner, UDA's and
assertions.
Then everyone can write his on version of given().when().then()
on top of it. Or simply make a pull-request for std.testing.bdd
