Does it make sense to have an expect block with no subject?

Currently expect takes a subject parameter. There’s no way to group assertions on multiple subjects (at least without abusing Assertion.Builder.map).

Does it make sense to have a form of expect that just takes a block? For example:

expect {
  that("fnord").isLowerCase()
  that("FNORD").isUpperCase()
}

The receiver of such a block would be a new interface with just fun <T> that(subject: T): Assertion.Builder<T> and fun <T> that(subject: T, block: Assertion.Builder<T> -> Unit): Unit.

The main problem would be that method dispatch would be ambiguous between the new expect method and the existing fun <T> expect(subject: T): Assertion.Builder<T>. One of them would need a different name (or to be removed).

[christophsturm]

or maybe rename the original expect to expectThat (expectThat("fnord").isLowerCase()) , and use the block syntax like

expect {
  that("fnord").isLowerCase()
  that("FNORD").isUpperCase()
}

it would also make tests nicer to read.

[christophsturm]

It’s also pretty easy to migrate to the new syntax by just defining a method expect that calls expectThat and then inlining that method. Also I agree about softly it’s just the first thing that came to mind.