Re: What do you think about Constraint modifiers?

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]> wrote:
> In case you didn't know, those are the things that come after the main
> constraint
> and modify how it acts. Currently we have:
>  .Within(...)
>  .IgnoreCase
>  .RespectCase
>  .AsCollection
>  .NoClip
>  .Comparer(...)
>
> These are devilishly hard to get right in the syntax. For example, you can
> type Is.Null.IgnoreCase in the current code, which makes no sense.

Even though it doesn't make sense, does it really hurt anything? Does
it act just as Is.Null would? If so, then I see no problem allowing
people to type in this foolishness.

> Before
> putting more time into this, I wanted to ask whether you use these and
> whether the current format works well.

I've used them a couple of times. When you need something like this,
you need it bad. So, even if you don't use them every day, I think
having something like this is ok.

> I know some people are bothered by a form that looks like a getter property
> modifying the state of the object, but you could also say it's just a new
> paradigm and get used to it. Obviously, if we abandoned the modifier
> syntax, we would need to find other ways to do the same stuf.

It fits with the constraint syntax, and if you've gone down that road
to that point, why not go all the way. They can always use
Assert.True(...) if they don't like it.

-Kelly

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/