Re: [boost] Interest in a Behavior Driven Development Framework

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-16 12:02:56

"Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I've been thinking about it, but unless I find a (better) way to be
> able to offer different specifications based on different subjects:
> there's value(...), object(...), pointer(...) then "should" will
> remain. (Please see attached files)

Even the guy giving that talk objects strongly to "should" but was
overruled by his colleagues for reasons he couldn't justify.  If
you're gonna go this way, "must" (**) would be appropriate.

(**) or, better, simply "is" if you really want to make it more like
     specification and less like testing.  But of course, "is" makes
     it an assertion, which this BDD philosophy somehow considers
     anathema.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com