[rspec-devel] [Proposal] change 'spec' to 'rspec'
luislavena at gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 23:49:02 EDT 2008
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:42 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:22 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The convention for gems is that the top level module shares a name
>>> with the gem, but rspec uses 'spec' instead, resulting in things like
>>> require 'rubygems'
>>> gem 'rspec'
>>> require 'spec'
>>> I'd like to propose that we change the 'spec' namespace to 'rspec'.
>>> We'd have to continue to support 'spec' for backwards compatibility
>>> for a long time, but we can do that with a few extra files that just
>>> require other files.
>> That recommendation is just to change the require, or the namespace also?
>> Becames RSpec::*
>> For the initial require: +1
>> For the namespace change: -1
> I didn't really mention that, did I? I think it's the right thing to
> do, but obviously there are other opinions. Can you explain why you'd
> not want them to move together, as long as we also aliased the RSpec
> module with Spec?
>> Luis Lavena
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
To quote your own words:
"I'd like to propose that we change the 'spec' namespace to 'rspec'."
But the mail started with renaming the top level module to make the
initial require more compliant, so I got mixed feelings.
I any case, I use most of RSpec out of the box. If Spec namespace will
be deprecated, I hope will stay long enough for plugin developers move
to the new convention :-)
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
More information about the rspec-devel