Hi martin
I agree should: is not that communicating.
I would favor
[] assert
[] assertWithDescription: 'funky preconditions'
Stef
On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Martin McClure wrote:
> Henrik Johansen wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Henry,
>
> Sorry, I hadn't read this mail before making a proposal.
>
> I agree that renaming Object>>assert: to #should: would be an
> improvement. But I still think it's probably better to remove it
> altogether and send #assert to a block. It may just be me, but I've
> always felt that as a selector 'should' doesn't really communicate the
> intent as well as 'assert'.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
