[rspec-users] surprising...

rogerdpack rogerpack2005 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 10:50:35 EST 2009


> You're about 4 years late to the party. We were playing around with a
> variety of options back in 2005 and went with the current syntax because it
> gave us the most flexibility and the highest level of decoupling, making it
> easier for others to create their own matcher libraries. While it would be
> technically feasible to support should.matcher, doing so now would cause
> more confusion for more people than be helpful, IMO.

I guess the confusion comes from being able to do

a.should == 'b'
a.should.== 'b'
but not anything like
a.should.equal('b')

== appears to be special cased?  But I'm sure I'll get used to it.
Thanks for the replies.
-r


More information about the rspec-users mailing list