[rspec-devel] underscores, sugar, and more and more bugs

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Mon Nov 20 15:14:27 EST 2006


On 11/20/06, Wilson Bilkovich <wilsonb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I sent this earlier under with the subject "artificial sugar causes
> > cancer" and I think some spam filters ate it. Here it is again:
> > ======================================
> >
> > All,
> >
> > If you look at http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6760&group_id=797&atid=3149
> >  you'll see that Chad (the submitter) found the source of the bug.
> > Unfortunately, the source of *this* bug is the *solution* to a
> > *previous bug* in which Rails was replacing RSpec's method missing
> > with its own.
> >
> > When we settled on underscores, my one reservation was that we'd keep
> > running into this particular problem - RSpec's method_missing
> > conflicting with others.
> >
>
> My opinion remains something like this:
> 1. Do away with underscores that require method_missing.
> 2. Implement all non-dynamic 'should' methods directly on Object.
> 3. Split anything dynamic with a period.
>
> e.g.
> @thing.should_arbitrary_predicate becomes @thing.should.arbitrary_predicate
> However, @thing.should_have(3).things would remain unchanged.

Do you see a substantial difference between these two:

@thing.should_be :arbitrary_predicate
@thing.should_be.arbitrary_predicate

>
> sugar.rb is a nightmare. As evidence, I present the fact that my
> original .method_should_be_changed_by {block} patch was rejected
> because it needed to modify sugar.rb.
>
> Even the core team doesn't want to touch it. :)
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list