On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:09:22 +0900, Massimiliano Mirra - bard
<mmirra / libero.removethis.it> wrote:
> Eivind Eklund <eeklund / gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Could people (excepting Nathaniel) that is likely to use the proposed
> > syntax please speak up?  (If there's a lot of people that would use
> > it, I'm probably wrong.)
> 
> I'm for any syntax that favours a quick code-test-code cycle.
> 
> With `quick' I don't mean `edit test file, save test file, switch to
> class file, edit class file, save test file, switch to shell, run
> tests', and an `extract parts of the test file' somewhere in between
> certainly doesn't make it quicker.

Are you by this saying you are going to abuse Nathaniel's syntax to
group as many of your tests there as you can?

I also liked your proposed syntax much better than Nathaniel's.  You
limited your syntax to only support a single true/false check per
example.  This avoids the problem of people putting entire tests in
the example (that should go in the test cases), and it makes the
examples much more readable.

I don't believe the readability of assert_equal and friends will go to
the same level as an infix operator (which both you and Florian used)
with "getting used to the syntax".  If it did, we'd all be programming
in Lisp (and Paul Graham wouldn't say that "prefix operators for maths
still feels weird after 20 years of programming Lisp").

WRT the speed issue: I think this is easily resolvable by using a hack
over require and a cache, to make the scanning incremental.  Doing the
scanning manually each time is certainly not a permanent solution.

Richard: Why do you prefer Nathaniel's syntax over Florian's?

Eivind.
-- 
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/