From: Matt Armstrong <matt@...>
Date: 2002-03-17T04:19:47+09:00
Subject: Re: testunit - setup -> set_up ?

"Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:

> Does anyone else read code like this? Perhaps the different sentence
> perception has to do with your Smalltalk background and my Java one?

I don't parse Ruby statements into English ones before I understand
them -- I just read the Ruby code and I can follow the algorithm.  The
method names are important because they do convey some intent, but
once you've learned the method name you no longer have to think about
its English translation when reading code.

> Am I stuck on an issue that doesn't really matter?

I think it ultimately doesn't matter.  In other words, people will
just learn the method names and just use them without thinking.

But to throw in my two sense, I like:

    assert_raises
    assert_throws

First, I'm used to it from RUnit.  Second, just like all the other
assert_ methods, you pass them some stuff and the method checks an
invariant.  Using "assert_raised" and "assert_thrown" introduces
tense.  Tense is irrelevant -- these are supposed to be timeless
invariants.

For the negated form, I'd break with English and just use

    assert_raises_not
    assert_throws_not

To mirror

    assert(expr)
    assert(!expr)

and the hypothetical

    assert_not(expr)

-- 
matt