2014-05-02 10:16 GMT+02:00 Henrik Johansen <[email protected]>:
> > On 01 May 2014, at 12:52 , Nicolas Cellier < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I see many usage of #should: in SciSmalltalk tests that could simply be > turned into #assert: or eventually #assert:equals: > > Why wanting to use a block? > > Other than #should:raise: and #shouldnt:raise:, I don't really see the > point of #should: alone anyway... > > IMO should: should be deprecated, less is more. > > I'm possibly the author of several of these #should: sends, so don't > take it personnally ;) > > > > P.S. or is it easier to restart the block in the Debugger? > > I cross post to pharo-dev because it's a generic question, and there are > a few #should: sends in Pharo-3.0 too. > > Reading code with should:, I always imagined a trailing question mark... > > self should: [IHaveIceCreamForLunch] ? > > And even more so with should:raise: > > self should [thisPieceOfCode] raise: SomeError ? > > I dunno, you tell me! > > The potentially constructive suggestion out of that, is that, at least to > me, > assert:raises: deny:raises: sound more natural than assert:raise: when > read out loud. > > I see, an affirmative form could be: [thisPieceOfCode] shouldRaise: SomeError but we need to insert the testimony of SUnit... assert:raises: is exactly that, and makes sense > Cheers, > Henry >
