Stefan Rusterholz wrote:
>> See assert{ 2.0 } at http://assert2.rubyforge.org/
>
> Also it seems to come with its own set of problems.

:-)  Don't we all?

>> my Dfect project at http://snk.tuxfamily.org/lib/dfect/
> 
> Looks good. But personally, I prefer intuitive method names, and I don't 
> think single character method names are intuitive in most cases.

Thanks, I agree.  That's why I created emulation layers to mimic
other popular testing libraries, such as Test::Unit and RSpec,
inside Dfect.  That way, I can use a similar sugary syntax to
write my tests, but with Dfect running the show under the hood.

> Also, baretest manages to get you all the power you need in only 2 
> methods :)

I see more than two methods:  suite, assert, failure, raises, etc.

Perhaps I have misunderstood?

> An example baretest testfile, something I should have added to the first 
> post already:
>[...]

Thanks for the example.  Your method name choices seem very natural.
I think I'll make an emulation layer for BareTest in Dfect soon.

Cheers.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.