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'
but not anything like
== appears to be special cased? But I'm sure I'll get used to it.
Thanks for the replies.
More information about the rspec-users