Re: RE: RFC: expectations/assertions

Hi Andrea, On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > On 04/02/14 21:09, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > >> It's inconsistent as closure is valid expression. >> Allowing callable make behavior consistent. It enables more >> complex assertion inline, thus it's possible name space clean. >> > > Might also help assert() performance, given that I expect executing a > closure to be quicker than eval() (though I may be wrong). eval() works. php > assert(eval('FALSE;')); Warning: assert(): Assertion failed in php shell code on line 1 php > assert(eval('return FALSE;')); Warning: assert(): Assertion failed in php shell code on line 1 php > However, it does not solve inconsistency. PHP code has to be string. Writing PHP code as string is not fun thing to do ;) Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net