From: Ron Jeffries Date: 2002-03-15T20:56:03+09:00 Subject: Re: testunit - setup -> set_up ? On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:10:16 GMT, "Nathaniel Talbott" wrote: >> In message "RE: testunit - setup -> set_up ?" >> on 02/03/14, "Nathaniel Talbott" writes: >> >> |Ah, but JUnit uses setUp... two words. So which is the "xUnit way?" >> >> I just miss "setup" just for its conciseness. > >Woah... pressure comes to bear ;-) Doesn't sUnit use setup? And why can't Ruby people use camel case? it is ten times easier to type x-shift-P than to type x_p. Or at least 50% easier :) But I digress... > >Actually, with the experience fresh on my mind of writing a couple of >emails about this whole thing and accidentally typing "setup" instead of >"set up" _every_ time I used it, I'm beginning to agree. It makes me >feel really wishy-washy, but I'll survive. > >To avoid more floundering, let me bring up a couple of other name >changes I'm pondering: > >#assert_raises -> #assert_raised >#assert_nothing_raised -> #assert_not_raised >#assert_throws -> #assert_thrown >#assert_nothing_thrown -> #assert_not_thrown in many cases I might just allow either, but that's a style that some disagree with. assert_raises seems right to me because the next thing is the name of the exception. assert_nothing_raised seems right because the next thing is /not/ the name of an exception. Ditto the throwns. > >I'll keep thinking about #setup vs. #set_up, and get back to ya'll. Get it right, Nathaniel, this one is for the species! And when oh when oh when will this stuff be in a Windows release. (Or, tell me it isn't that hard to load it in directly.) Ronald E Jeffries http://www.XProgramming.com http://www.objectmentor.com I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.