From: Matt Armstrong <matt@...>
Date: 2002-03-14T14:05:16+09:00
Subject: Re: testunit - setup -> set_up ?

Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:

> OK, how about this.
>
> he idea of having these set[-][uU]p methods called by coincidence has
> always bugged me. Instead, what about
>
>    class MyTest < Test::Case
>
>      def initialize(*args)
>        super
>
>        overall_setup do
>          x
>          y
>        end
>
>        per_test_setup do
>          a
>          b
>        end
>      end
>
>      def test_...
>
> That makes it explicit.

Believe it or not, I've used inheritance and done things like call
super from within set_?up/tear_?down methods.  Making setup
non-methods makes that harder I would think, or at least forces me to
use some other mechanism to accomplish what the language already has a
good solution for.

-- 
matt