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

[aslak hellesoy]

On 6/6/06, Cuong Tran <cuong.tran at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm just a rspec beginner but I would vote for DOT since it's a bit easier
> on my finger :-)
> My little finger is overwork already.
>

Vote noted, but I think it's more important to please eyes than
fingers. Readability has high importance in RSpec land.

What reads best to you? dots or underscores? Indifferent?

Aslak

>
> On 6/6/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/6/06, Lachie < lachiec at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The dots made me look twice at rSpec in the first place, but it was
> > > more because it was such a novel approach.
> > >
> > > in the end
> > > +1 Underscore
> > >
> >
> > Bear in mind that the initial syntax was underscores. The dots were
> > introduced later in order to make the implementation simpler and more
> > robust. So from an implementation standpoint, I'd prefer to only
> > support dots. From a usability standpoint, I'd like to use
> > underscores. So, since I live on both sides of that divide:
> >
> > +. 5 Dots
> > + .5 Underscores
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>