On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > > > > > > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > > > > > > folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit? > > > > > > > > > > For me, personally, if I'm in TextMate and I see a row of tabs that > > > > > say: > > > > > > > > > > thing.rb|thing_controller.rb|thing_controller.rb|thing.rb > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to be confused by that. It also makes searching for the file > > > > > that much more complicated because you have to start looking for the > > > > > folder when you search for thing.rb instead of just looking for the > > > > > filename. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts about that? > > > > > > > > >From a practical standpoint, _spec is there because it allows me to > > > > distinguish files at a glance. > > > > > > > > >From a philosophical standpoint, .rb is there because I'm writing > > > > specifications that just happen to be implemented in Ruby. (no I > > > > would not suggest in a million years that the files be changed to > > > > .spec. That's silly) > > > > > > Can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here. Is it really > > > silly? If so, why? Maybe you're on to something here. > > > > It's not actually silly. In fact some time last year I made all my > > specs end in .spec instead of .rb. The only potential problem is > > integration with tools, which all know how to handle .rb files. > > Though of course those can be configured. > > > > I don't have a personal preference really. If others feel that naming > > them .spec better conveys the idea of "executable specs that happen to > > be implemented in Ruby" then cool. It's silly, to me, in the sense > > that I don't think it warrants much thought. > > > > otoh maybe I need to be more forward-thinking in that regard. RSpec > > works on JRuby, and developers could conceivably use RSpec to drive > > their Java-only code. RSpec obviously has the makings of a general > > specification library and I wouldn't be surprised if bindings pop up > > for other languages now that the core is stable. > > > > So I guess I just talked myself into .spec :) > > When I first got involved w/ rspec we batted this idea around. We > landed on the convention of "_spec.rb" and, to be honest, I don't > remember why. I vaguely recall there being some problem with .spec. > Perhaps it was just that it required teaching editors like TextMate to > treat these files as Ruby files. I don't remember for sure. > > Thinking about this a bit more, I don't think that this is worthy of > changing right now. I imagine that it would cause trouble for anybody > who's got custom rake tasks, custom actions in IDEs, etc.
Agreed. It could turn out to just be a hassle for anyone new coming to RSpec. We don't want that. > As for ppl > using rspec to drive behaviour on other platforms, it's still got to > be interpreted as Ruby first - at least that's how the world of JRuby > is now. So I don't think dropping the .rb buys us expansion into other > platforms. YAGNI, I guess. > But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps > more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future. Can't you tell just how strong my feelings are on this? :) Pat _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
