ndrwrbgs

For the String and Collection `SizeIs` methods, they seem redundant since users could use `Ensure.That(str.Length).IsGt(4)`. However I would suggest either feature parity (if exposing SizeIs, also expose Gt/Lt/!=), or not...

@danielwertheim I'm game to work on any/all of these if/as you approve of them, just let me know if you think they'd be valuable contributions.

Most of these implemented in the -Experimental library RE my comment in #125 I worked around it by allowing the user to specify how to handle 0, if you wanted...

Linked in the other convo (was trying to avoid 'advertising' as that isn't the intention here) but will link just for your ease since you're traveling :-P I implemented samples...

I think I mentioned in another thread -- absolutely nothing :P. But having it separate meant I didn't have to wait for PR, ensure parity in all 3 API forms,...

Hm, I wouldn't have implemented order for dictionary, semantically it doesn't make much sense. I didn't actually implement the SizeIsX because I felt it was a bit leaky, instead I...

Might want to look over https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/26705/is-zero-positive-or-negative for how to handle 0, evidently our assumptions might not hold for all application domains

I can support the expressive method name option (programmers spend too much time trying to make short vague names so I'll always support longer ones :P). It supports fewer possible...

@dmarciano do you want to merge with the latest master and get this into the next release?

For any that do not take a delegate, this would be okay. Those that do though have their purity implicit on the purity of the delegate, so would need to...