[Rspec-devel] should_be_nil or should.be.nil

[Evgeny]

When I consider the dots-vs-underscore-vs-spaces question, I dont
think in ruby. I think usability and catch-easy.
Dots are easy, they are more intuitive, since I someone who is not
well informed will be less inclined to make typos and mistakes and
code that wont-work-the-first-time-its-run.
Dots are continuation of whatever it is you are writing in that
"should" sentance.

For example.

myfoo.bar is a method on an instance of a class.

The two spec phrases would be thus :
(1) myfoo.bar.should.not.be 10
(2) myfoo.bar.should_not_be 10

Since the second phrase is somewhat of a mixed-dot-underline (like in
mixed-case), it will be much more prone to typos and mistakes - and
thus less likely to be more intuitive. There is no such problem with
the first example, this is why I fell in love with rSpec in the first
place... it extends the sentance without bringing in its own rules
that need to be followed (ie. counted intuitive)

Actually, the best solution IMHO would be spaces, as in :
(3) myfoo.bar should not be 10

Number (3) is th best in intuitive/english-closeness that you can get
-- and thus makes it the best of kind in this specification writing.
[To prove my point, notice how many spaces you are using in your
letter and weight that against
whats-more-intuitive-spaces-or-dots-or-underscores]

And underscores REQUIRE you to press two keys on your keyboard, both
shift and the - key, while dots dont. [on english keyboards anyways]

Choose DOTS! They are best! :)

Regards all,

Evgeny.

On 6/7/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Evgeny <evgeny.zislis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dots! :)
> >
> > well, dots are more consistent anyways,
> > since x.y.z.q.w.e.r.t.y is better than x.y.z_q_w_e_r_t.y
> >
>
> Can you elaborate on why you think dots are better?
>
> And since I didn't elaborate on my own opinion when I voted, so here I go:
>
> Underscores mask the fact that we're dealing with several chained method calls.
> This is - IMO - A Good Thing, since it allows the reader/writer of the spec code
> to focus more on readability than implementation. Underscored methods is a
> well-established convention in the Ruby community. Many dots is not - and it
> reminds me of a kind of code I have a strong disliking for - code that
> violates the
> tell/don't ask principle. Also known as the Law of Demeter, or "more
> periods than a girl's locker room". I'm concerned that if RSpec
> advocates long dotted calls, people might
> be less inclined to avoid it in their own code. By using dots we're on
> a slippery slope - advocating a bad practice.
>
> Aslak
>
> > On 6/7/06, Michael Granger <ged at faeriemud.org> wrote:
> > > On 6-Jun-06, at 2:28 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> > >
> > > > RSpec supports both dotted and underscored syntax.
> > > >
> > > > While users can choose whichever they like, I think the documentation
> > > > and examples we provide for RSpec should consistently use one style.
> > > > Right now it's rather confusing.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid confusing the users.
> > > >
> > > > Shall ve vote? Please reply to the latest reply - that makes
> > > > counting easier.
> > >
> > > Underscores.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Granger <ged at FaerieMUD.org>
> > > Rubymage, Architect, Believer
> > > The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.faeriemud.org/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rspec-devel mailing list
> > > Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rspec-devel mailing list
> > Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Rspec-devel mailing list
> Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>