From: Jeremy McAnally Date: 2008-10-09T00:35:04+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:19209] Re: refute_{equal, match, nil, same} is not useful Even further, refute isn't actually an antonym to assert. Refute usually carries the connotation of "proving" something is false where as assert is merely declaring something to be true. A closer fit (that is used in other testing circles) is "deny," which is to, obviously, declare something to be false. I didn't know why I didn't like refute until I really thought about what it meant. You're not really proving that the provided assumption is false; rather, you're declaring it. Just my 2 cents. I know you're probably not going to change it, but I personally think the nomenclature is just weird. --Jeremy On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Stephen Sykes wrote: >>I can actually see Ryan's point of saying that "refute_equal a, b" >>being clearer than "assert_not_equal a, b". If I were writing an >>English sentence, I'd definitely use the former sort of construct ("I >>refute that a and b are equivalent") rather than the latter sort of >>construct ("I assert that a and b are not equal"). > > I would definitely write "I assert that a and b are not equal". It's > far clearer and plainer english. > > When I read tests they kind of read like if statements: > > assert_equal a, b => if a == b then ok > assert_not_equal a, b => if a != b then ok > > Using refute is simply less clear - reading "not_equal" in the > statement explicitly tells you the condition that will be used to test > success - a not equals condition. > > Stephen > > -- http://jeremymcanally.com/ http://entp.com/ http://omgbloglol.com My books: http://manning.com/mcanally/ http://humblelittlerubybook.com/ (FREE!)