Re: Fwd: Assume

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Charlie Poole
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kelly,
>
> > Dang old reply-to field anyway...
>
> FWIW, I deal with it using Outlook by removing the Reply button and
> only leaving Reply to All.

Gmail isn't as flexible...

> > I envision the exception being eaten by NUnit, and not being
> > passed back up through the GUI or to the user... there might
> > be a case to be made here, but I think silently succeeding
> > fits best with the theory of Theories. :-)
>
> I think that's what I said. But...

Ok, so we're in agreement... :-)

> > > My problem is that the meaning of the Syntax is not what a normal
> > > human (at least I) thinks it should mean. Taken alone,
> > Assume seems to
> > > say either "you don't have to check for this"
> > > or "it's an error if you get a zero value".
> >
> > The word comes from the Theory paper.
>
> Which is why it makes sense to me only in the context of a Theory

Ok.


> > The BDD folk have made a lot out of a pretty subtle thing, so
> > paying attention to the words used is clearly very important
> > to some people.
>
> Clearly a bad example for me, but I take your point.

I don't mean to offend...  I just don't see the big deal with BDD myself.

> > Because it's easier to generate random values without
> > thinking about what might be legal in a particular context.
> > That is, you can more easily generate random values in a
> > general way if you don't have to worry about the specifics of
> > a particular test... I'm usually a generalizer, so I tend to
> > pay attention to such issues earlier on that maybe I should,
> > YAGNI and all...
>
> Generalizing in the implementation (for example, using the
> same underlying builder, fixture and test case) makes a
> lot of sense.
>
> Generalizing in the user interface can also make sense in
> some situations - but it's usually not a one-to-one mapping
> with the implementation. In this situation, the naming of
> classes and methods an the way we mark tests with attributes
> constitutes a user interface. If we use the same naming
> for things the user considers different that's a bad
> use of generalization.

Norman (Usability of Everyday Things) generally says that the best
user interface reflects the underlying implementation because it gives
the user the proper idea of what's happening. So I lean in that
direction much of the time.

> There can be a situation where we want to influence users
> to think about things in a different way, which is probably
> the case with Theories. In such a situation, we might force
> some sort of generalization that the typical user is not
> initially comfortable with - coupled with writing a lot
> of articles,etc. Using Assume with Iterative test doesn't
> seem to me to fall in that category, however.

Ok.

> It would be nice to hear some other opinions on this matter,
> rather than just yours and mine, wouldn't it? Folks?

Sure would.

-Kelly

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/