On 8/6/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2007, at 7:19 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > > On 8/6/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Is there some reason that pending() *MUST* take an argument? > > > > There was no discussion of this when the feature was contributed. > > Thinking about it now, to allow for no arg would require good default > > messages - one for when there is a block and one for when there is > > not. As long as you can come up w/ messages that really make sense in > > all situations, then a patch would be welcome. > > How about accepting no arguments if no block is given?
I think that would be more confusing - it should work the same way for both situations. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
