From: Florian Gross <flgr@...>
Date: 2004-11-18T03:33:15+09:00
Subject: Re: assert

Wood, Jeff wrote:

> It's a semantic thing, but you could also go with an #ensure name
> But, I guess I have a question, why not just have a function that
> switches asserts to either raise an exception or cause an IRB
> session?  that way you could KNOW your code isn't going to break into
> IRB in it's production environment, unless you specifically ask it
> to...

Problem with using assert() for the method name is that test/unit 
already uses it for stating what a test ought to produce. It seems 
likely that you will have test/unit style assert()s and breakpoint style 
assert()s (which I'd like to call assumptions) in the same code base.