From: Florian Gross <flgr@...>
Date: 2004-11-14T00:48:24+09:00
Subject: Re: assert

Gavin Sinclair wrote:

>>>>I have thought about changing the name to "assume" so it can be included
>>>>in dev-utils, but I'm not sure if that name is better.
>>I think that would be way too much magic. I'd expect the method to just
>>take a block.
> 
> Why a block?  The breakpoint code uses Binding.of_caller anyway, so a
> block is not needed for evaluation.  I don't see any other reason,
> technical or stylistic, why a block should be preferred.

Using strings for code is a bit ugly. We have blocks in Ruby, why not 
use them? Using a String also causes a bit of escaping trouble (I know 
this can be worked around via the %{} or <<-END syntax, but I still 
think blocks are clearer than that.)

> I suppose we might as well dispose of the symbolic argument and just
> do this:
> 
>   breakpoint_unless 'x + y == 10'

Why don't just use "breakpoint unless x + y == 10" then? I think it 
makes sense to use something more concise here.

> Can you expand on the "too much magic"?

I don't know -- the syntax just seemed so very unnatural. Like something 
you wouldn't meet anywhere in the standard library...