[rspec-devel] [ANN] RSpec 0.9.1 released
nick at pivotalsf.com
Sun May 6 15:36:39 EDT 2007
Not to get into a semantic argument but...
I've long complained that Rspec's are not specs but examples. A
specification is a formal, complete description of all possible behaviors of
a program. A spec of fib, for example is like
Forall n > 1, fib(n) == f(n-1) + fib(n-2)
Or for a sort algorithm,
Forall array s.t., array.length > 0, For all j. s.t. 0 < j < array.length,
let array' = array.sort in array'[j] < array'[j+1]
The unfortunate thing about specifications is that they are usually
non-executable. However, you can prove the a program corresponds to a
specification using formal methods (i.e., proofs).
The idea that specifications "provoke" a program is a misleading way of
On 5/6/07, Chad Woolley <chad at pivotalsf.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/07, Brian Takita <brian.takita at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the following quote is the gist of the terminology change:
> > >
> > >
> > > Still, it creeps me out when people refer to tests (aka examples) as
> > specifications. There's an important distinction:
> > > A specification describes a correct program, while a test provokes a
> > correct program.
> > That's why example are used instead of specifications. So maybe the
> > question now is why is example better than test?
> > Also, why is 'describe' replacing 'context'? The quote implies we don't
> > to describe software, but provoke the correct software.
> I dunno. I still don't get it. The more I think about it, the more I
> just want to go back to "test".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-devel