On Nov 18, 10:25 ¨Âí¬ ¢áòá®ô®èï÷áòä¢ ¼áòá®ô®èï÷®®®Àçíáéì®ãïí¾ ÷òïôåº
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Daniel Berger wrote:
>
> > Dunno. Don't care. I don't feel the need for DSL-y notation in my
> > tests.
>
> > assert_rocks(Test::Unit) # Test::Unit 2 anyway
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Dan
>
> i'm with you dan - the fact that 'should' somehow produces better code > that 'assert' is plain crazy.  ¨Âéó ãèáîçéîç Ô¨ÄÄôï ®

I think Shoulda can create a printable, formatable spec from the tests
themselves that PM's can easily read. Or is that RSpec? Or do either
of them have that feature? I thought one of them did.

That's about the only practical advantage I can see. And, I think
that's something that could be integrated into Test::Unit if we really
wanted it.

Regards,

Dan