Re: RFC: Expectations

On 22 October 2013 02:08, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: > I'm pretty convinced that expectations *without* exceptions are a good > idea, as using assert (which is really eval) is a nasty thing that > should be replaced, but IMO exception throwing should not be part of > this feature. I agree that something to replace the eval-based assert() would be good. What if the new syntax simply respected assert_options(), and assert_options() was extended to support an explicit ASSERT_EXCEPTION control option (that presumably took an exception class name as its option value)? That seems like it would provide the exception based possibilities that some posters want while maintaining the same assertion behaviour that users are already used to by default. Adam, who apologises if this has been suggested before — this was a long set of threads and I've been busy.