From: Stefan Rusterholz <apeiros@...>
Date: 2007-09-05T20:03:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Embedded vs. Non-embedded Tests

micathom wrote:
>> Would be a very nice feature if ruby had that, even though I'd introduce
>> additional syntax and I've no idea how to integrate it nicely.
> 
> There are a few libraries around that try to do this (google for "ruby
> dbc" or similar). Most of these efforts are not entirely convincing.
> Unfortunately, the ruby community seems somewhat dogmatic in arguing
> against dbc. Maybe because it's not enough of a duck.

I know, but I found none of them convincing enough. Might change with 
ruby2, as there are more possibilities then.
IMHO DBC is orthogonal to duck typing. It changes just what you test 
for. Instead having a contract that states "argument must be a duck" you 
just will have "argument must quack like a duck". I fail to see how that 
goes against duck typing.

Regards
Stefan
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.