Re: RFC: Expectations
| From: | Joe Watkins | Date: | Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:20:44 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Expectations | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-69721@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 10/21/2013 09:16 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 21 October 2013 10:13, Patrick Schaaf <bof@bof.de> wrote:I was following along with the abstract suggestion, I thought that was pretty well thought out, but a bit hard to explain why we are re-using the abstract keyword for something that is completely unrelated to abstract classes all the same ... So for those that see the problem does Expected work around it ?? Cheers JoeAm 21.10.2013 03:52 schrieb "Joe Watkins" <krakjoe@php.net>:wat?So looks like we need a new name ?? Ideas ??abstract EXPRESSIONabstract is already a keyword, so no BC. abstract is not concrete so alludes a bit to the might-be-or-might-not-be-checked nature of the test abstract is the name for the "short summary" intro part of scientific papers, and these conditions are kind of a summary of what is known (preconditions) and concluded (postconditions).Ah, ok well. I'd rather go for expected() or except() then... Expected appears to be the most suitable solution suggested so far ...