[Rspec-devel] Rspec on Rails is broken in SVN

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Fri Jul 21 12:43:21 EDT 2006

On 7/21/06, Steven R. Baker <srbaker at pobox.com> wrote:
> >> The other is this whole sugar thing. This is like the 5th time it's
> >> come up as a problem w/ changes we're making. I propose that we
> >> draw a
> >> line in the sand right now. We're either committed to it, which means
> >> that all changes must be tested to not conflict w/ sugar (which means
> >> there should be tests that are expressed using the _ syntax) or we
> >> should bag the thing. I'm  leaning more and more towards bagging it,
> >> but I understand the desires of users to have the more rubyish
> >> syntax.
> >> It's just that it makes rspec brittle. Maybe it's just that we
> >> need an
> >> implementation that is less ticklish.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > Bag it & tag it.
> >
> Nope.  It's what the users want.  It'll be made to work.

It's what users want based on the question "what do you want, dots or
underscores?" Ask the question "what do you want, underscores or
reliability?" and I'll bet you get a different answer.

Developing software is always a balancing act between what users want
and what is pragmatic. Underscores have continually proved themselves
un-pragmatic, and will continue to do so for the life of this project
unless we come up w/ a better solution than is currently in place.

More information about the Rspec-devel mailing list