[Rspec-devel] support for arbitrary comparisons
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 11:51:31 EDT 2006
On 9/6/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mike Williams contributed a patch to support arbitrary comparisons.
> > This is now in the trunk and will be part of the next release. So you
> > will now be able to do this:
> > result.should_be < 5
> > result.should_be >= 7
> > It also supports alternate syntax for should_be, should_match
> > result.should == 3
> > result.should =~ /regex/
> > Personally, I prefer should_be and should_match in these cases, as I
> > think they read better. Anyone else have opinions about that?
> I prefer should_match and should_equal too, but I don't expect
> everyone to feel the same. I think it's great to support both.
> I don't see a problem with making this official now and add it to the
> website documentation. Dave's cheatsheet (which is not in svn - grr)
> should be updated too.
In the process of doing so (not on the cheatsheet).
> > This patch also supports using methods that are not formatted like
> > predicates but act like them:
> > def whatever
> > true
> > end
> > subject.should_be_whatever
> > I really object to this on philosophical grounds. Ruby predicates are
> > a beautiful construct, and I personally feel that if you're writing
> > methods like that you are violating a ruby aesthetic. If you agree
> > with that, then you have to agree that supporting them in rspec also
> > violates the same aesthetic. To that end, even though they work, they
> > will not be offically supported at this point (i.e. you can use them,
> > but they may go away some day).
> I agree we shouldn't support non-questionmark "predicates". Let's make
> the day support for it goes away be today ;-)
The only problem with explicitly not supporting them (i.e. not letting
them work at all) is that it gums up the rspec code which is currently
quite general. My thinking is that if it is in the docs, it is
supported. Otherwise you're on your own.
What do you think?
> > I'm curious to hear thoughts on this as well.
> > Thanks again to Mike Williams for supporting arbitrary comparisons.
> > It's really a great addition.
> > Cheers,
> > David
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rspec-devel mailing list
> > Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> Rspec-devel mailing list
> Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
More information about the Rspec-devel