Steven Weerdenburg

No strong preferences from me either. I'm partial to `{d}` out of those options myself as it feels more natural to me, but I'm also fine with anything.

While I like the idea of naming an "AssertionScope" without the "multiple" identifier to encourage more arbitrary use but I don't have a strong preference. Someone may indeed want to...

> > Although I like the idea, there will be people that would call this statement without a using at all. That would mean the multiple is not reset. >...

@nunit/framework-team It sound like this could help in scenarios where a multiple assertion has separate subgroupings which each must fail-fast (https://github.com/nunit/nunit/issues/4720). I'm promoting this from an `idea` to something we...

To get the ball rolling on design, it sounds like we're discussing something that could look like this: ``` public enum ScopeBehavior { RunAll, StopOnFirstFailure } public class AssertionScope :...

That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that. I'd be fine with leaving the `ScopeBehavior` part out of the initial public API of this Disposable proposal, at least until we...

@manfred-brands Would `public sealed` also work for you? @OsirisTerje how strongly do you feel about being able to instantiate the class directly like in your strawman code sample here: https://github.com/nunit/nunit/issues/4587#issuecomment-1854302483...

@OsirisTerje do you feel strongly about being able to instantiate the scope directly like this? ```csharp using (new AssertionsScope()) { } ``` as opposed to requiring initialization like: ```csharp using...

Great, thanks! Sounds like we have a design.

Good catch, I hadn't thought about that. I don't have other ideas for immediate solutions. Another, separate edge case: The callback based approach of `Assert.Multiple` enforces that an inner block...