Peter,
Adding the feedback generation into makes the API even more
complicated, because you'd have to ar least pass a String as a fourth
parameter.
So we'd end up with:
assertExecuting: aBlock with: listOfArguments resultsIn:
expectedResult otherwise: failureString.
... and if you - like me - wonder if this would be any better than the
current #assert:description: and some additional bindWith:'s for
reusable nicer error texts, we may finally agree that we can as well
leave SUnit as it is ... and bite the bullet of writing a bit more code
for better feedback.
In this form, I am sure nobody would use it. Or just for very special
and important tests. So all that I can come up with for now is
insufficient, unfortunately. Sure, there can be variants that provide
some standard parameters for most of the arguments, but the base
problem remains that the API is clumsy.
So my whole point boils down to: please don't add too much cruft to
SUnit just to get better feedback.
Joachim
