Open subsetpark opened 3 years ago
Would it be better to have a separate are
macro for this? While this looks helpful in the abstract, it also seems to confuse the semantics of is
. To be clear, it doesn't have to be are
and could be something that makes the relationship to is
clearer (e.g. is-multi
, is-group
, iss
, etc).
Yeah, I think that’s right. I’m not a fan of those bdd-style libraries that try to give you an English word for everything you might want to say, but the aim of keeping a simple and consistent semantics for the function itself is quite worthwhile.
Yeah, I'm similar. I'm a worried that are
is a little too clever by half. I didn't really like the other alternatives, though. If it was a separate macro, do you have a name you'd prefer? is-all
? is-every
?
each-is
maybe? each
is already a word
That one sounds good to me: clear and easy to understand.
Add a new macro,
each-is
:each-is forms &opt note
forms
should be a tuple or array of assertion forms, of the same kind understood byis
.(each-is @[foo bar baz] "note")
is equivalent to:original issue text:
(is @[foo bar baz] note)
would be equivalent to(is foo note) (is bar note) ...