> There are inconsistencies that bother me. > > * TestCase>>assert: in most Smalltalks accepts only a boolean. In > Pharo, > it accepts either a boolean or a block. This makes tests less > portable.
+1 > * TestCase>>assert:equals: (a very useful method) does not accept a > block. Anyone used to giving blocks to #assert: would probably expect > this method to accept a block. +1 consistency is nice. > * Object assert: accepts a boolean or a block. I don't know of any > standard for this. me neither > * BlockClosure>>assert does not take any arguments, so I feel it is > very > clean. +1 > Proposed changes: (based on earlier discussion plus personal opinion) > > TestCase>>assert: should only accept a boolean. This brings > compatibility with other Smalltalks, and consistency with > TestCase>>assert:equals:. + 1 > Object>>assert: should be removed/deprecated in favor of > BlockClosure>>assert. This removes confusion with TestCase>>assert:. deprecation! > Object>>assert:description: and Object>>assert:descriptionBlock: > should > be removed/deprecated in favor of (new) > BlockClosure>>assertWithDescription:, which accepts either a block > or a > string. This provides convenient invariant and pre/post condition > testing. Let us do that. Any taker? Stef > > > Opinions? > > -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
