Why not rename Object>>assert: to should:, so it avoids breaking polymorphism, and keep TestCase>>assert: reserved for a boolean argument to stay compatible with SUnit in other dialects?
On the negative side, it might not be as intuitive using should: for pre/post-assertions, as well as inconvenient to remember the difference between assert: and should: in TestCases. Not big enough negatives to outweigh the benefits though, imo. Cheers, Henry Stéphane Ducasse skrev: > The idea is that one day or later we will have to think about the > benefit of pre and post condition. > So assert: in object makes a lot of sense. > > Now indeed it would be good that all the tests use assert: without > block and use should: for that case. > > Stef > On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > >> I don't either, but I find strange the complete hierarchy of classes >> of Pharo having a method assert: available. Perhaps I'm blindfolded >> and Pharo and Squeak have found a wider use for assertions? >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
