[rspec-devel] Refactorings merged into Trunk

[Jim Deville]

>
> Also, can pending we wrapped around describe blocks? That would be
> nice. But even then, two pending blocks are needed.

+1 on this idea. If it isn't already implemented
>>>
>> -1, I agree with what's already been said. I think that if a user is
>> moving to the BDD/Rspec world, then they won't mind doing things
>> differently, since most of BDD is different.
> That's sort of presumptuous. Alot of people are being turned off by
> rspec being "unnecessarily" pedantic. People like the benefit of
> rspec's DSL (behaviour/it and the should methods). I doubt that the
> pending keyword is a selling point. Its just seems different.
>>

My bad, I guess I assumed that if someone were to come to BDD's mind- 
point, then they would be willing to change. I forgot that there are  
a lot of other convenience's like this, such as using Test::Unit  
assertions in an example.  From that point of view, it is a good  
idea, it still might be overloading with the other forms already  
existing.

>> Jim
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-devel mailing list
>> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>>
> It seems there is no support for this, so I'll remove xit and
> xspecify. This particular feature request is not that big of a deal
> anyways.
>
> I don't mean to be unnecessarily harsh, I'm just relaying the thoughts
> of the people I work with (real rspec users who aren't necessarily in
> love with it). These users also tend not to participate in forums like
> this, so they are underrepresented here.
>
> I want rspec to be better, just like all of us. :)
>

:)