On Wednesday, 9 May 2018 at 10:37:52 UTC, Cym13 wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 May 2018 at 04:40:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
>> On 05/08/2018 05:05 AM, Cym13 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> No, it really doesn't mean the same thing at all. Not when you look away from the unimportant implementation details and towards the big picture:
>>
>> [...]
>
> With UFCS I find that in my code a dot means "function composition" more often than "is a member of". Maybe it's just that I like writting in a functional style, but UFCS chains are very much endorsed by the language, so I wouldn't call it a stretch.

I agree with this in this case.

On 2018-05-08 09:07, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:

> The question is: Why "should.equal" instead of "shouldEqual"? The dot only seems there to be cute.

It scales better. This way only one "should" function is needed and one "not" function. Otherwise there would be a lot of duplication, i.e. "shouldEqual" and "shouldNotEqual". Hopefully the library can have a one generic implementation of "not", where it doesn't if the assertion is "equal", "be" or some other assertion.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg