More fluently-readable "exist" matcher

[robert-gurol-signavio]

I'm working a lot with technical writers, lately.
They suggest that the "[path] be exist" matcher be renamed, so that the behavior-driven code can be read more fluently.

Given the constraints of the formal syntax, "[path] exists" may be too far off (at least, for my skills as a contributor), so I'm suggesting "[path] be existent".

In the Java world, I have worked with developers who are really perfectionist about fluent APIs (in Java, stuff like .matches(aRegex).and().isANumber()), there are definitely the kind of programmers who appreciate this :)

My colleague pointed out that I should make this clear: I do not mean this to be a condescending thing to point out grammar issues, and I hope that's not how it comes across.
Personally, I'm using this ticket as motivation to dig a bit into the shellspec code, ... and to fix a typo I submitted recently 😅 (that one off-ticket commit in there - I hope you don't mind).

---

What I tested locally: I ran this, and it worked without test failures.

$ ./contrib/all.sh ./shellspec
Linux dev-106 5.11.0-17-generic #18-Ubuntu SMP Thu May 6 20:10:11 UTC 2021 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
==================================================
      sh : /usr/bin/sh -> /usr/bin/dash
     ash : ----
    dash : /usr/bin/dash
    bash : /usr/bin/bash
     zsh : /usr/bin/zsh
   pdksh : ----
     ksh : ----
   ksh93 : ----
    mksh : ----
    oksh : ----
    yash : ----
    posh : ----
 busybox : /usr/bin/busybox
==================================================
[...]

[ko1nksm]

Thanks for the great suggestion and pull request. Actually, it has already been suggested by @jocutajar (#179 and see also #178). Currently, due to personal priorities (#216), I do not have enough time to develop ShellSpec.

Given the constraints of the formal syntax, "[path] exists" may be too far off (at least, for my skills as a contributor), so I'm suggesting "[path] be existent".

What you mean is that [path] exists is better? If so, we should choose it. My guess is that if you create lib/core/matchers/exists.sh and write the similar code with this as a reference, it should work.

However, @jocutajar's suggestion is not exists, but exist. I don't know which is more appropriate (because my native language is not English).

there are definitely the kind of programmers who appreciate this :)

I am one of them :P

I want ShellSpec to be perfect. However, I can write programming languages, but I am not good at writing English language. I would have really liked to discuss and decide on a fluent API, But there were not enough users to make that decision right away. However, it may be possible to do so now. I have created a discussion (#221).

to fix a typo I submitted recently 😅 (that one off-ticket commit in there - I hope you don't mind).

I merged it ahead of time. Please rebase.

[ko1nksm]

Based on #221 (comment), I agreed to the change to should be exist.

@robert-gurol-signavio Can you continue the work? My guess is that it's not that difficult. If you are not sure, feel free to ask. (but, I may not be able to reply right away.)

[robert-gurol-signavio]

Thank you for your input in #221 (comment) ! 🙇

I'll go with that comment as a base, and close this pull request for now.

I'm on leave this week, I will continue earliest on 2021-06-13.

[phil-hands]

However, @jocutajar's suggestion is not exists, but exist. I don't know which is more appropriate (because my native language is not English).

I've not actually used shellspec (yet :-) ) but noticed this issue, and thought I might be able to add something.

I take it that the language is supposed to be asserting that a particular path exists.

If so, the 'be' forms are all somewhat ugly, but the closest to proper English is 'be existent' -- In British English at least 'be present' would be a more natural way of expressing that idea, but is probably less obvious to non-native speakers.

If it's possible to make it work without the 'be' then [path] exists version is much more natural, and makes it obvious what is being tested for.

HTH

[robert-gurol-signavio]

@phil-hands #233 is merged, if you install ShellSpec at master branch level, you can use "exists" now :)