From: Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>
Date: 2004-11-14T09:13:13+09:00
Subject: Re: assert

On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:20:49AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2004, 2:48:24 AM, Florian wrote:
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> Agreed, but you can print strings.  You can't print blocks.  See
> below.

Hm, has someone tried ParseTree
(http://www.zenspider.com/ZSS/Products/ParseTree/) to print out blocks?

Would be really great if that works.

  trace { x + y }           #=> x+y = 5 
  assert { x + y == 0 }     #=> assertion 'x+y==0' failed...

Uhm, seems that's only possible to dump methods in classes, not
arbitrary code. But maybe, it's possible.

Regards,

  Michael