Andreas Lind

`to contain` takes varargs, not an array of items that the subject array must contain. The first example should probably have looked like this: ```js > expect([0, 1, 3, 4,...

That looks really sweet! You should turn that into a plugin.

@Munter That's a great idea. The [tv4 implementation](https://github.com/geraintluff/tv4/blob/master/tv4.js) seems rather involved, though, so it's probably not an easy task.

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to consider it :)

No worries, I read your reply as a candid reaction, not as a definitive rejection. I tend to agree that it would add a tad too much complexity, unless it...

@inyono Good point. I'm on my phone, so I can't try and see what the error message is, but it looks like we're missing that check. Does that mean that...

@inyono, thanks, I added a note about it to the docs (http://unexpected.js.org/api/addAssertion/) and landed a commit on master so that `addAssertion` will fail with `Only one assertion string is supported...

@inyono Thanks for describing your use case, that sounds reasonable. We'll keep it in mind if we end up revisiting this potential enhancement.

@bruderstein mentioned another use case for this on the gitter channel today: bruderstein: ``` js it('calls click on a part of a component', () => { const renderer = TestUtils.createRenderer();...

The `to throw`... assertion [already uses "to satisfy" semantics](https://github.com/unexpectedjs/unexpected/blob/9b30831c8365a531dce26af401ca5ebdc5d5fb7c/lib/assertions.js#L1057-L1065), though? In the light of that I think it would make sense to add the ...`satisfying` variant as an alias?