From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2003-12-05T10:12:05+09:00
Subject: Re: [PATCH] multiple exceptions for assert_raises

Hi --

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [PATCH] multiple exceptions for assert_raises"
>     on 03/12/05, Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
> 
> |> By the way "assert_raises" looks against the "plain form noun" rule of
> |> Ruby (i.e. exist? instead of exists?).  Can you prepare "assert_raise"
> |> alias to it, Nathaniel?
> |
> |Hmmm... I wasn't aware of the rule. Is it documented somewhere?
> 
> No.  I mentioned the rule on the ruby-talk list several times though.
> 
> |I can certainly add an alias for the 1.8 series if you'd like, but if 
> |it needs to be changed, I'd want to add a deprecation warning 
> |eventually for 1.8, and remove #assert_raises in 1.9. Is that OK?
> 
> You don't have to remove assert_raises in the near future, when we
> still have "has_key" method.  Perhaps deprecation will be taken place
> in 1.9, and they will be removed in 2.0.

Will is_a? become are_a?  


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net