Re: RE: RFC: expectations/assertions

Hi Stas, On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote: > > I meant the form of the code, not assert(). > > JavaScript uses callbacks extensively and users are used to it. > > PHP users are also getting used to it since the introduction of closure. > > But I mean assert(). Javascript implementations have assert() - Chrome > has it, Firefox has it, NodeJS has it. It does not work like you > propose. Doesn't it make you question your assertion that Javascript > users really need this? I think it's nice to have as it does not use variable scope/name space. Code related to assert() is better to hide it's existence as much as possible. IMO. JavaScript implementations have different APIs. Node.js has closer API. assert.throws( function() { throw new Error("Wrong value"); }, Error ); while we may have assert( function() { // Some check here return FALSE; }, 'Error' ); I would use at least, since I don't want to assert() related code to use variable scope nor namespace. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net