Boost logo

Boost :

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).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
> 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.
email: dean_at_[hidden]
mobile: +63 928 7291459
phone: +63 2 8943415
other: +1 408 4049532

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at