Let's bikeshed std.experimental.testing assertions/checks/whatchamacallits

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 12:22:31 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 19:38:20 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 01/07/15 10:40, Atila Neves wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> You could write "shouldBe.gt(value)".
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> In every project I have used RSpec I have added custom 
>> matchers/assertions. Just a couple of days ago I added a 
>> custom matcher to one of my projects:
>>
>> [...]
>
> Ah, makes sense. I think I'm convinced now. The UFCS as an 
> extension mechanism could indeed be handy.
>
> Atila

So... unconvinced again. I tried implementing it and it started 
getting to be a right royal pain, and then I realised that 
there's nothing to prevent a user from writing their own matchers 
right now. From your example:

     void shouldBeParsedAs(Code code, ASTNode node) {  //I don't 
really know what the types should be
         if(...) {
             throw new UnitTestException(...);
         }
     }

And... done. No need for a `Should` struct, no need for the 
complications I faced trying to use one. I think the design is as 
good as it can be.

Atila