Thomas Lotze wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
I'd count this as another (minor) point in favour of making the 'fail*' methods canonical: the names are consistent *and* gramatically sensible:
-1
I'm surprised nobody (that I've noticed) has brought up the point yet that test code is a lot easier to read if it makes positive assertions. When reading failure conditions, one has to constantly invert them in order to deduce the behaviour that is tested. failUnless and friends aren't better either IMO since while they do work with positive assertions, the method names themselves are doubly negative. assert* methods are so much more straightforward to comprehend.
I think this is where I came in. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/