[DUnit-interest] RE: RE: StartExpectingException

[Kristofer S. <k....@sa...>]

> This can, of course, be made into a general method:
> procedure ExpectException(const AMethod : TTestMethod; Exceptions
> : array of const);
<...>
> Unfortunately, you can't use local methods for this, so you'll have
> to divide up your testcase into several small methods, and have it
> all communicate through private fields. A bit annoying...

It's a tradeoff, the elegance and readability of a straight left margin (no
inline repeated/nested try-except clauses and indentation/branching) vs. the
nesting/delegation of test code to lower level test-subcases.

What I think we really need here is a new language feature, a sort of
inverse try-except block!
Would allow to write code like this:

TryExpect([EMyException,EOtherException])
DoBlah(0,nil,NastyValue);
EndExpect;

EndExpect swallows exceptions of the declared types, and if no exception is
raised, EndExpect will raise its own EMissingException. But somehow I don't
think Borland finds our little corner of the world interesting enough to
implement language features for. <g>.

Kristofer