=== on 24 Nov 2015, 14:01:46 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] see truncated description in main task.

=== on 24 Nov 2015, 14:27:15 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] It seems okay. 


Do we mark somehow rules that are library dependent? For example, out of the box we only have ``++Assert.IsTrue++`` and ``++Assert.AreEqual++``-like assertions. With those, this rule doesn't make sense. But when you add a library like "FluentAssertions", you could write "something.Should();" instead of "something.Should().NotBeNull()". 

=== on 24 Nov 2015, 14:36:37 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] should we expand the examples to include: 

----
Assert;  // Noncompliant
----

----
Assert.AreNotSame(actual,"");
----
? Does the noncompliant version compile?

=== on 24 Nov 2015, 14:49:24 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] No, ``++Assert;++`` on its own doesn't compile.

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]