[rspec-devel] need help getting a word right

Dean Wampler deanwampler at gmail.com
Thu Jul 19 09:48:52 EDT 2007


"it_should" works, but I see your objection.

I'm intrigued by all 4 of these options:

feature {@thing.should be_something}
characteristic {@thing.should be_something}
responsibility {@thing.should be_something}
trait {@thing.should be_something}

All the words except for "characteristic" have been used in other contexts,
e.g., Traits - Composable Units of Behavior (
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Research/Traits/#implementations), but they
still convey the right idea. Some of these words are a bit long, but code
completion and hot keys are your friends...

allege {@thing.should be_indicted}

could prove useful ;)

dean


On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/07, Ian Dees <undees at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > Quoth Dave:
>
> This makes me feel like the subject of poetry, Edgar.
>
> >
> > >   it do
> > >     @thing.should be_something
> > >   end
> > > end
> > ...
> > > But "it do" is driving me mad :(
> >
> > You and me both:
> > http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/2007-April/002415.html
>
> _____ minds think alike (fill in the blank - and "great" is not allowed).
>
> > > We need a better word. Of course, 'specify' has not been completely
> > > removed, so you can still do this:
> >
> > I know you're not totally sold on using "specify" here, but I think it
> > looks okay.
>
> It does look okay. I just really want a different word. I may not get
> what I want.
>
> > If you really want to move away from "specify," then would there be a
> > way to keep "it" but add a do-nothing "return self" method to the
> > example object?  Something like "must?"
> >
> > it.must do
> >   @thing.should be_something
> > end
>
> If we were to do something like that we would probably use should:
>
> it.should do
>   @thing.should be_something
> end
>
> But that doesn't really work for me either. Structurally, I love this:
>
> specify {@thing.should be_something}
>
> I just really want a different word. We're saying "describe Thing",
> and this word should indicate that the block represents a subset of
> that description. One great word would be "facet":
>
> describe Thing do
>   ...
>   facet {@thing.should be_something}
> end
>
> I don't want to use that word though because we may be using it for
> something else. But that's the idea I'm pushing towards. Following
> through an on-line thesaurus, starting from "facet", here are some
> interesting options:
>
> property {@thing.should be_something}
> aspect {@thing.should be_something}
> feature {@thing.should be_something}
> dimension {@thing.should be_something}
> characteristic {@thing.should be_something}
> responsibility {@thing.should be_something}
> quality {@thing.should be_something}
> trait {@thing.should be_something}
> perspective {@thing.should be_something}
>
> Here are some amusing options:
>
> peculiarity {@thing.should be_something}
> idiosyncrasy {@thing.should be_something}
>
> And, my personal favorite (from the amusement standpoint):
>
> virtue {@thing.should be_something}
>
> Any of these strike anybody as useful?
>
> Of course, those are all nouns. We could use a verb ('specify', for
> example). Again, using the thesaurus:
>
> define {@thing.should be_something}
> appoint {@thing.should be_something}
> determine {@thing.should be_something}
> prescribe {@thing.should be_something}
> stipulate {@thing.should be_something}
> allege {@thing.should be_something}
> assign {@thing.should be_something}
> refine {@thing.should be_something}
> itemize {@thing.should be_something}
> identify {@thing.should be_something}
> appoint {@thing.should be_something}
> establish {@thing.should be_something}
> intend {@thing.should be_something}
> submit {@thing.should be_something}
> suggest {@thing.should be_something}
> establish {@thing.should be_something}
> impose {@thing.should be_something}
> instruct {@thing.should be_something}
> stipulate {@thing.should be_something}
> say {@thing.should be_something}
>
> Admittedly, some of those are just silly. But perhaps something
> strikes you as useful. Or perhaps these lead to other ideas. Keep 'em
> coming.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> >
> > --Ian
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>



-- 
Dean Wampler
http://www.objectmentor.com
http://www.aspectprogramming.com
http://www.contract4j.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/attachments/20070719/2b92801e/attachment.html 


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list