But you are setting up an expectation, right?

my_method.must.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't? but it must!

my_method.should.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't, but it should!

For me the second example feels more natural in a environment where  
you expect tests to fail at first, maybe this is different in BDD than  
in TDD, I don't know enough about BDD. Especially when you use tests  
to design interfaces the "should" thinking comes more natural: You  
don't have a feature yet but you write down what it should do, then  
you implement it.




On 18.11.2008, at 13:30 , Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> Trans wrote:
>> Why did 'should' become the going nomenclature of BDD framworks?
>> 'Should' connotes 'ought', as if something ought to do xyz, but
>> doesn't necessarily have to. I don't know about you, but I don't  
>> write
>> my tests/specs that way!
>> 'Must' is the word that denotes what our tests/specs do.
>
> I agree. I've suggested the classic requirement-docs' "shall" in the  
> past too, but "must" has an immediacy more appropriate to BDD.
>
> - Charlie
>

einarmagnus