From: Florian Gross <flgr@...>
Date: 2004-11-19T00:43:12+09:00
Subject: Re: assert

Jean-Hugues ROBERT wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> I suppose that assert() can still be used. The new version would I
> have to figure out that it runs in the context of test/unit. In that
> context its behavior would be compatible with test/unit.
> 
> The other contexts that assert() should support are: - production =>
> throw an exception - debugging  => start an irb session - custom
> => invoke some user provided assert failure handler

This is an interesting idea. I think I will try it out.