dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 17:19:11 EDT 2008
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Ashley Moran
<ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2008, at 9:43 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> Well, in fairness to wycats, rspec doesn't really offer formal
>> extension points that would support this syntax, so he did the best he
>> could given what is available. We've had some discussion about this
>> and haven't landed anywhere firm yet.
>> My opinion is that rspec, as it stands right now, needs a bit of
>> internal cleanup before we start adding new features like that one.
>> Also, the way I'd like to see this go is that rspec exposes a formal
>> extension point - some sort of hook into pre and post-processing of
>> each example including any arguments it was given. Then the merb
>> extension could use a published API rather than monkey patching.
> Ah, I understand now. I didn't mean my comment in a negative way, just that
> Merb has a philosophy of simplicity and transparency, and monkey-patching is
> the Rails way to do things. Hence my surprise. And spec code too... if
> anything's gonna make me nervous!
> Is the Merb spec syntax (or something like it) something you'd like in the
> future? (RSpec 2?)
Not sure about that yet. You can already accomplish the same thing
with a variety of existing structures and I think that this structure
brings up other questions like:
* how about a :when and :then?
* how does this impact the output?
However, I'm definitely interested in developing and committing to an
API that makes it easy to write extensions like this. Then wycats
could publish this as a separate extension gem, for example, and those
who like it can easily use it w/o concern for the fact that it is
monkey patching another library.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users