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

From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-17 23:18:05

Hi Dave!

On 9/17/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "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.
>

I think "must" can be a reference to the "should" instance in the
spec<> created by value(...), object(...), pointer(...) or
something(...) so that the same things that can be done with "should"
are interchangeable with "must".

value(a).should.equal(10);
value(a).must.equal(10); // works the same as above

:D

> (**) 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.
>

Yeah, and "is" could very well be yet another alias/reference to the
"should" object contained in the spec<> object. ;-)

-- 
Dean Michael C. Berris
C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co.
web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/
email: dean_at_[hidden]
mobile: [phone]
phone: [phone]
other: [phone]
blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com