"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2328.1299539399.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Monday, March 07, 2011 12:43:00 Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "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.) > > Yes. I'm the sole author. Feel free to re-use it. It's under Boost, so you > can > use it for whatever Boost lets you do with it, and even if what you're > doing > isn't Boost compatible, it's fine with me if you use it anyway. >
Thanks. > I do intend to take some of its functionality which assert will never have > (such > as assertPred!("opCmp", "<") or assertPred!"opAssign") and make another > proposal > to add those, but that's going to have to wait until other stuff is > reviewed, and > it doesn't help with what assert is supposed to be doing anyway (such as > assert(a == b)). > > I would really liked to have gotten assertPred into Phobos, fancy assert > or no, > but too many people just wanted assert to be better and thought that > assertPred > was unnecessary, overcomplicated, and/or overkill. > Yea. I have a little bit of experience with JUnit/NUnit. Compared to that, assertPred is trivial and perfectly straightforward.