From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-17 23:18:05
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).must.equal(10); // works the same as above
> (**) 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
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: +63 928 7291459 phone: +63 2 8943415 other: +1 408 4049532 blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk