[rspec-users] "should_not ==" vs "should !="

Alex Satrapa grail at goldweb.com.au
Sun Jan 20 20:01:05 EST 2008

On 19/01/2008, at 17:36 , David Chelimsky wrote:

> When you say 5 == 3, what that is really saying is 5.==(3), which is
> how we're able to support 5.should == 3 (becomes 5.should.==(3)).

Would it be true to say that the reason "5.should != 3" won't work is  
that somewhere inside Ruby the x != y comparison is remapped to !(x  
== y), and thus the "5.should != 3" is remapped to "not (5.should.==  
3)", with rspec generating a failure when "should" sees false coming  
back from the "==" method?

Or am I barking up the wrong tree and potentially misleading dozens  
of programmers down the garden path?


More information about the rspec-users mailing list