<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DUnitAssertions: Are compound constraints worth it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.excastle.com/2007/04/18/dunitassertions-are-compound-constraints-worth-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.excastle.com/2007/04/18/dunitassertions-are-compound-constraints-worth-it/</link>
	<description>Life, .NET, and Cats</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe White</title>
		<link>http://blog.excastle.com/2007/04/18/dunitassertions-are-compound-constraints-worth-it/#comment-5641</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.excastle.com/2007/04/18/dunitassertions-are-compound-constraints-worth-it/#comment-5641</guid>
		<description>That's true, anything with &#34;between&#34; or &#34;and&#34; could be two separate tests. At one point it seemed like it would be nicer if you could write a single Expect.That(...) call with a custom-rolled constraint, rather than having to make two Expect.That(...) calls (or making a custom assertion message that calls Expect.That(...) twice). But I'm having trouble nailing down an example of where it would gain you much. &#34;Between&#34; is the best I can come up with, and it's not that compelling. (Heck, if &#34;between&#34; is that useful, I could just build Tis.Between into the framework.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I still haven't come up with an example where &#34;or&#34; would be useful; it just seemed like a good idea at the time. Less so, the more time I spend on the idea.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s true, anything with &quot;between&quot; or &quot;and&quot; could be two separate tests. At one point it seemed like it would be nicer if you could write a single Expect.That(&#8230;) call with a custom-rolled constraint, rather than having to make two Expect.That(&#8230;) calls (or making a custom assertion message that calls Expect.That(&#8230;) twice). But I&#8217;m having trouble nailing down an example of where it would gain you much. &quot;Between&quot; is the best I can come up with, and it&#8217;s not that compelling. (Heck, if &quot;between&quot; is that useful, I could just build Tis.Between into the framework.)</p>
<p>I still haven&#8217;t come up with an example where &quot;or&quot; would be useful; it just seemed like a good idea at the time. Less so, the more time I spend on the idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad White</title>
		<link>http://blog.excastle.com/2007/04/18/dunitassertions-are-compound-constraints-worth-it/#comment-5640</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.excastle.com/2007/04/18/dunitassertions-are-compound-constraints-worth-it/#comment-5640</guid>
		<description>Seems like AND and BETWEEN are both mixing two tests.  If you split it into two tests, anything that failed the compound test would also fail one of the two tests.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;OR seems harder to replace, but&lt;br&gt;a) might be able to work out something with NOT&lt;br&gt;b) I can't yet think of a place i'd *need* it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Conversely, if you need OR, then you probably need AND also.&lt;br&gt;&#34; A OR (B AND C)&#34; &lt;br&gt;If you can't split the OR, then you can't split the AND either.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems like AND and BETWEEN are both mixing two tests.  If you split it into two tests, anything that failed the compound test would also fail one of the two tests.</p>
<p>OR seems harder to replace, but<br />
<br />a) might be able to work out something with NOT<br />
<br />b) I can&#8217;t yet think of a place i&#8217;d *need* it.</p>
<p>Conversely, if you need OR, then you probably need AND also.<br />
<br />&quot; A OR (B AND C)&quot;<br />
<br />If you can&#8217;t split the OR, then you can&#8217;t split the AND either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
