[Rspec-devel] dots vs underscores tally

[aslak hellesoy]

On 6/7/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/7/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/7/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My thinking is that if we're committed to underscores, then that's
> > > what we should support. The tests should change to use underscores.
> > > I'll be glad to change them myself.
> >
> > > Doing this will give us more freedom in implementation. For example,
> > > right now the HaveHelper has methods "at" and "least" and "most". If
> > > we abandon official dot-support, there's no reason we can't change
> > > that to "at_least" and "at_most", at which point the code speaks a bit
> > > better IMO.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > I think the internal implementation with chained helper is great, so I
> > hope you don't
> > want to change that.
>
> Not entirely. The chained helper is what gives us arbitrary
> predicates, reduces the changes to Object, etc. I'm just saying that
> for specific cases it might simplify the code to use "_".
>
> >
> > I suppose we could implement at_least and at_most and tweak sugar.rb
> > to account for those special cases.
>
> If sugar needs tweaking to handle these, then I withdraw my suggestion
> (vis a vis changing implementation).
>

I'm not sure it will need tweaking. And so what if it does?

> However, that's based on rspec as it is today. I still think that with
> a long rspec life in mind, that we're shooting ourselves in our future
> feet by supporting both "_" and "."
>

Agree

Aslak

> >
> > Aslak
> _______________________________________________
> Rspec-devel mailing list
> Rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>