>��So you can both name your example whatever you want and keep your code separate , clean and nice.

I believe the reason for convention was clickable examples in system browser. So as far as tests go even if they are in separate classes you can only run methods beginning with 'test' and not other support (setUp/..) methods. The same would go for examples. You may need other non-example methods to run the example so you need to discriminate them.

Also shouldn't this convention for pragmas vs method names be more global? For example

ComposableModel class>>defaultSpec vs <spec> and so on.

Peter

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:33 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not a fan of pragmas myself, but then I am also not an enemy.��

Personal I would prefer if we would follow a similar approach to unit testing, meaning separate classes for examples. I dont like the idea of mixing regular code with examples even just for a single example. Separate class will also mean there would be no need for the name of the method to contain "example". So you can both name your example whatever you want and keep your code separate , clean and nice.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:15 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi doru and others

so finally what is the conventions we should use for example?

exampleFooBar
�� <example>

Stef