[rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention
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
> 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.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users