std.unittests for (final?) review

[Jens Mueller]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/5/11 8:54 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> >I prefer assert, assertFalse, assertEqual and assertNotEqual.
> >
> >Compare this:
> >assertPredicate!"a<  b"(1 + 1, 3);
> >
> >To this:
> >assert(1 + 1<  3)
> >
> >Or to this:
> >
> >assertLess(1 + 1, 3)
> >
> >Ok, the first one is more generic. But so the error message for the assertion failure will be more generic, when you want exactly the opposite to happen.
> >Plus your brain has to think more to read it (starting from the point that it's longer).
> >
> >assertPredicate!"<"(1 + 1, 3) reminds me of polish notation, which is very good for machines but not very good for humans.
> 
> One problem with using distinct names is the explosion thereof.
> Google unittests have EXPECT_EQ, EXPECT_NE, EXPECT_LT, EXPECT_GT,
> EXPECT_LE, EXPECT_GE, EXPECT_TRUE, EXPECT_FALSE and probably others.
> I was able to write these from memory because I used to know
> Fortran, which uses the same two-letter conventions for comparisons.
> At that point I think we can say, wait a minute, why not use the
> respective symbols which are impossible to forget?

I partly share this. But there may be users who are not that deeply into
the template stuff. Even though they miss a lot. I'd like to have
testing easy and assertEqual is easy. I mean Jonathan started with those
names. When I look now at the documentation the name assertPred alone
does not tell much. I feel a bit lost.
Why not define an alias? I mean there are people who master assertPred.
Why not giving others a slow start using assertEqual and friends.

Jens