--- Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I almost posted this a few hours ago but then decided not to since > I'm > not sure I like the thread at all. I'm posting it now because while > I'm not a huge fan of the idea itself, the problems you list are due > to a lazy interpretation of the idea (just to be clear, I'm not > calling you lazy, I'm just saying that you didn't put much effort > into > the implementation, presumably because you dislike the idea to start > with),
Fair enough. Yeah, I was lazy :) > This one is true but then the whole point of this thread is to make > assertions for things that shouldn't be true - which is kinda why I > don't like it myself, The assertion being made isn't necessarily that a particular bit of code returns a particular value, but that a particular failure in the code has started failing in an unexpected way. Noticing that in the past is what makes me somewhat sympathetic to this idea, but I haven't really thought enough about the implications to be sure of the right way to go. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
