Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69721
Return-Path: <krakjoe@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 35197 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2013 08:20:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 21 Oct 2013 08:20:48 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.4.21.210 cpc22-asfd3-2-0-cust209.1-2.cable.virginmedia.com  
Received: from [80.4.21.210] ([80.4.21.210:16263] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id B8/4D-44908-0E3E4625 for <mike@php.net>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:20:48 -0400
To: internals@lists.php.net,Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
Message-ID: <5264E3DC.7080603@php.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:20:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3D.BC.23638.84CA1625@pb1.pair.com> <000301cecd1b$9aa133f0$cfe39bd0$@tutteli.ch> <CAH-PCH4y5qiXyLLw8ezv1RDzq-NomghAG0ZbPm0Kve=OZspTCg@mail.gmail.com> <526488C1.8020400@php.net> <CAJ26g5T7-zbvs1JVspFkCqT+v8mn34m6XY=GhrQKgxNypEAp=A@mail.gmail.com> <CALJZF3inVJMTMdaZCPd4mRdo9z3R6u58z5GL=bRaj6X79oxDxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALJZF3inVJMTMdaZCPd4mRdo9z3R6u58z5GL=bRaj6X79oxDxg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Posted-By: 80.4.21.210
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Expectations
From: krakjoe@php.net (Joe Watkins)

On 10/21/2013 09:16 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 21 October 2013 10:13, Patrick Schaaf <bof@bof.de> wrote:
>> Am 21.10.2013 03:52 schrieb "Joe Watkins" <krakjoe@php.net>:
>>>
>>> So looks like we need a new name ?? Ideas ??
>>
>> abstract EXPRESSION
>
> wat?
>
>
>> abstract is already a keyword, so no BC.
>>
>> abstract is not concrete so alludes a bit to the
>> might-be-or-might-not-be-checked nature of the test
>>
>> abstract is the name for the "short summary" intro part of scientific
>> papers, and these conditions are kind of a summary of what is known
>> (preconditions) and concluded (postconditions).
>
> Ah, ok well. I'd rather go for expected() or except() then...
>
>
Expected appears to be the most suitable solution suggested so far ...

I was following along with the abstract suggestion, I thought that was 
pretty well thought out, but a bit hard to explain why we are re-using 
the abstract keyword for something that is completely unrelated to 
abstract classes all the same ...

So for those that see the problem does Expected work around it ??

Cheers
Joe