Proposed major change: delete And interface

[dsaff]

This is moving the pull request #4 into a new branch, off of master, in order to stage multiple changes at once. Original text below, original comments at the URL above.

Coming back to Truth after a hiatus, my first impression is that we're paying a lot in type complexity, and not getting enough for it. In this case, I've been able to make the type system for all Subjects much simpler, including bringing CollectionSubject back from the brink of incomprehensibility, by dropping the and(). and() was fluency for fluency's sake, and I feel that the new tests are at most an iota less readable than the old ones, and only one test that once compiled no longer does. I don't necessarily expect an immediate LGTM, but wanted to generate an end-point for discussion.

One more point: this includes some bugfixes to Expect that I expect (ahem) to be uncontroversial, which we can consider on their own in pull request #7

[cgruber]

Crap. Several things are getting mixed up, and probably partly because of my failure somewhere in merging. Grr.

[cgruber]

Ok, so after a lot of soul searching, I think I can see my way clear to removing "And". I will miss it - I really liked that chaining approach, but I'm ok with it, despite the lesser englishy bit.

I think this has gotten mixed up between several changes, even though this was split out. Shall we try again?

[cgruber]

Oh - this was submitted after all. Ok - got it. Apparently my own syncing failed on my clone.

[cgruber]

Or no it wasn't. Dammit - too much time away from github - sorry for the spam. I'd liek to see this resolved and us move forward.

[cgruber]

Ok, so I've pulled the other two pull requests that were mixed in to this - did you want to merge back into your branch, so we can see the final result without the extra bits about expect and fail?

[dsaff]

Yeah, looks like I'll have to remerge. I'll try to do so tonight.

[cgruber]

Heh. It's gonna hurt. :D

[dsaff]

It looks like it will be difficult to remerge this without having to relive hours of typing mismatches that I've already lived through and forgotten once. I'm not really a consumer of Truth at the moment, so I'll let those who are active consumers decide whether my bias for shorter type parameter lists is truly worth the effort to get there. Shall I close this pull request?

[cgruber]

Leave it open, but I'll take it as read that you're orphaning this effort - hagbard@, maybe you and I can hash this out to see if we want to pick it up or let it go.

On Apr 2, 2012, at 1:22 PM, David Saff wrote:

It looks like it will be difficult to remerge this without having to relive hours of typing mismatches that I've already lived through and forgotten once. I'm not really a consumer of Truth at the moment, so I'll let those who are active consumers decide whether my bias for shorter type parameter lists is truly worth the effort to get there. Shall I close this pull request?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#6 (comment)

[cgruber]

New pull request created to deal with this, all synced with current at #37. I'll close this issue as obsolete (as an issue and pull request).