From: Matt Armstrong <matt@...>
Date: 2003-02-13T08:28:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Name for #=== based assertion

"Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@rolemodelsoftware.com> writes:

> Hal E. Fulton said:
>
>> Off the top of my head, I think "equivalence
>> operator" might be a good term. And I did make
>> that one up just now. ;)
>
> So you would suggest #assert_equivalent? It has a nice ring to it.
> Objections?

Yes, since in English "equivalent" and "equal" are more or less
equivalent.  ;-)

I would expect all of these to fail because the things are not
"equivalent":

    assert_equivalent(String, "foo")
    assert_equivalent((0..10), 5)
    assert_equivalent(/d/, "abcdefgh")

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

  Equivalent \E*quiv"a*lent\, v. t.
     To make the equivalent to; to equal; equivalence. [R.]


Test::Unit should try to play on ==='s use in case statements, or make
something up.  E.g. in Ruby source === is called eqq:

enum.c:    id_eqq  = rb_intern("===");
object.c:    rb_define_method(rb_cModule, "===", rb_mod_eqq, 1);
parse.c:    {tEQQ,      "==="},
re.c:    rb_define_method(rb_cRegexp, "===", rb_reg_eqq, 1);

Mabye assert_eqqual?  :-P

-- 
matt