On 2/8/11 12:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 08:36:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/8/11 10:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Enhancement request for assert:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547
Thanks!
Okay. I'll look at doing another proposal whic
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.1401.1297185535.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 08:36:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/8/11 10:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > Enhancement request for assert:
>> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.
On 2011-02-08 12:26:23 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
said:
So in the most basic form assertThrown is used to check that our
functions throw on bad (user) input,
and assertNotThrown is used to check that our functions work with valid input?
Most functions are said to work whey they have the desired
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 09:26:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> So in the most basic form assertThrown is used to check that our
> functions throw on bad (user) input,
> and assertNotThrown is used to check that our functions work with valid
> input?
>
> Looks good to me.
Yes.
- Jonathan M Davis
So in the most basic form assertThrown is used to check that our
functions throw on bad (user) input,
and assertNotThrown is used to check that our functions work with valid input?
Looks good to me.
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 08:36:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/8/11 10:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Enhancement request for assert:
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Okay. I'll look at doing another proposal which has the functionality of
> >
Am 08.02.2011 18:00, schrieb spir:
> On 02/08/2011 04:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> I would point out, however, that it would be rather silly to include
>> assertThrown and not assertNotThrown. Good unit tests should test_both_
>> that a
>> function succeeds as it's supposed to_and_ that it
On 02/08/2011 04:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I would point out, however, that it would be rather silly to include
assertThrown and not assertNotThrown. Good unit tests should test_both_ that a
function succeeds as it's supposed to_and_ that it fails as it's supposed to.
So, I would hope that
On 2/8/11 10:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Enhancement request for assert:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547
Thanks!
Okay. I'll look at doing another proposal which has the functionality of
assertPred which doesn't make sense to add to assert, though I'll probably wait
until
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 07:27:55 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Vote has closed last night at 23:59:59:99, but I accepted Lars' late vote.
>
> Thanks Jonathan for responding to comments and suggestions, and for a
> very dedicated attitude throughout.
>
> YES votes mean wholesale acceptance of t
10 matches
Mail list logo