"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2297.1299478837.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Sunday 06 March 2011 21:57:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.2293.1299467610.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> >> > I _was_ thinking of putting forward a new proposal which includes the >> > unit testing functionality that assertPred had which won't end up in an >> > improved >> > assert, >> >> Speaking of which: Now that assertPred has been rejected on the grounds >> of >> an improved assert that doesn't yet exist, what is the current status of >> the improved assert? > > There's an enhancement request for it: > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547 > > I have no idea of any work is actually being done on it or not. It hasn't > actually been assigned to anyone yet, for whatever that's worth. Honestly, > it > wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't happen for a while. I'm not sure that > anyone > who is capable of doing it is particularly motivated to do it (though I'm > not > sure that they're _not_ either). It was clear that a number of people > wanted > assert to be smarter rather than having assertPred, but it isn't clear > that > assert is going to be made smarter any time soon. I suspect that it will > be a > while before it's done. We'll have to wait and see though. >
Yea, that's what I figured, and that's why I was strongly in favor of assertPred despite the "promise" of assert improvements. You're the sole author of assertPred, right? Do you mind if I include it in my zlib/libpng-licensed SemiTwist D Tools library ( http://www.dsource.org/projects/semitwist ) ? I already have an assert-alternative in there, but assertPred is vastly superior. (Although, my assert-alternative does save a list of failures instead of immediately throwing, which I personally find to be essential for unittests, so I would probably add the *optional* ability to have assertPred do the same.)