On 2015-06-03 12:50, Atila Neves wrote:
Easily. I toyed with this syntax
foo().should == 3;
And that works. Unfortunately it doesn't work for `!=` or `>=`. I could
do the other operators as compile-time strings, but then `==` would be
the weird one out. In the end I didn't think there was much value of
typing `should.equal` over `shouldEqual` and left it as it is.
The reason would/might be custom "should functions"/matchers.
I'd have to think about that. First we'd have to agree on how things
should look, though.
Yeah, but I would think that if the "should" function was separate from
the operator used it would be easier, but I don't know.
No, but it'd be easy to write. Is that actually needed though? It
doesn't seem something that would come up often, and one could always
write `&foo.shouldEqual(&bar)`.
I don't know. RSpec has it.
I might take a look, but really all I've ever seen is expecting to throw
a particular exception anyway.
This was for when you're expecting a function to _not_ throw an exception.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
