Re: RE: RFC: expectations/assertions

Hi Nikita, On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > There is a difference between f() and 'f'. The former is a function call, > the latter a callback. The eval-behavior non-withstanding assert is > essentially if (!$arg1) { error($arg2); }. So if (!f()) { ... } makes a lot > of sense, but if (!function() {}) {} makes zero sense. Again, function() {} > only creates a callback, but does *not* run it. To run it, you'd need > something like (function(){})(). Thank you for the explanation. Current assert() is consistent as its spec, since it does not support callable which is callback function. I think assert() may accept closure. As I wrote in another mail, assert(function() { // some // useful // code }); looks nicer and more modern. Users are use to this as this kind of form is extensively used in JavaScript. I wish to have this form for new assert(). Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net