[Rspec-devel] possible addition to expectations...
aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 24 10:49:05 EDT 2006
On 4/24/06, Dave Astels <dastels at daveastels.com> wrote:
> aslak hellesoy wrote:
> > On 4/24/06, David Astels <dastels at daveastels.com> wrote:
> >> Nice. But... it doesn't support the have... expectations.
> > I got the impression Rich wanted feedback on the general idea. Support
> > for have.. can be easily added.
> > So what do you think about the idea? Something we want to add before
> > 1.0? In my opinion it makes RSpec follow general Ruby naming
> > conventions more closely. So I'm +1
> I agree about having the _s. I'm not sure we want to roll it into 1.0
> at this point. Possibly part of a 1.0.x point release.
> It's a wicked cool approach but I have some small qualms about
> overriding method_missing in object.
that's not a big deal as long as we alias the old method_missing and
delegate to it if the :method doesn't =~ /should_.*/
> Let's give it some thought & disscussion.
> Rspec-devel mailing list
> Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
More information about the Rspec-devel