[rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

Dan North dan at tastapod.com
Tue Sep 4 18:36:22 EDT 2007


Ashley Moran wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>   
>> But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
>> more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
>>     
>
>
> I like the sound of .spec in a way.  It shortens the filenames which  
> is always a bonus for TM users.  I can see the issue with file  
> associations, but it's easy enough to change these for TextMate.   
> (Although, allegedly, there are some Ruby developers that don't use  
> TextMate.)
>
> In favour of .spec, Rake has its own extension (.rake).  You could  
> argue that RSpec is not much more tied to Ruby code than Rake is.
>   
Ruby isn't the only language where BDD is being used. sheep_spec.rb says 
to me: this is a behaviour spec(ification) in Ruby for a sheep. 
SheepSpec.java or SheepSpec.cs says the same for Java or C-hash.

If we come up with a programming language-independent way of 
representing specs, then I'm all for a .spec suffix. (Perhaps the 
specdoc descriptions might be something along those lines.)
> Ashley
Cheers,
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070904/c7641ef6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the rspec-users mailing list