[Rspec-devel] possible addition to expectations...

Dave Astels dastels at daveastels.com
Mon Apr 24 13:02:48 EDT 2006


aslak hellesoy wrote:
> 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_.*/

what about other messages =~ /should_.*/ that aren't ours?

Dave



More information about the Rspec-devel mailing list